[X] My Assistant

[Yerameyahu]

It doesn't say anything about that. And it'd be pretty overpowering if so: 4, 6, god knows how many cyberlegs for free, with free room to mod? Minidrones with minicyberlegs?

[Saint Hallow]

I fail to see any reason for them not exist. People, even in 2072, are still people. Ladder wells, or stairways , are more than just functional in some cases they are aesthetically pleasing in some cases.

Fire codes would still exist in 2070, I think. In case of power-outage/fire, there needs to be an alternative method of getting up & down floors for people.

[Traul]

Or, for runners, in case the hacker loses his grasp on the building security...

[Draco18s]

Why else would you need 30 armor?

Clearly in order to survive a shot from any ordinance pointed in your general direction.

Think of it this way:
If all the players are arming up and armoring up in expectation of the GM hitting them with a giant hammer, you build to survive the giant hammer.
Yes. Every run is going to be a guns blazing run, but that's apparently how TJ's games go: if we do any guns blazing, it won't be any fun because the only tactically viable solution is to be able to survive thor shots, therefor every run is not a guns blazing run.

[Neraph]

RAW discussions with you are impossible in my experience. You go from "I am right, show me where the rules say I am wrong, explicitly".
Meaning you shift the burden of prove to the other side and expect them to prove a negativ. Thats like proving you did not do something. Mostly it is impossible if you did not plan for it ahead.
It is useless to have a discussion like that, because you could argue that adding red strips to an car makes it go faster. I could not prove the rules say it does not.

And RAW discussions with you are impossible because where I actually quote rules sections in my argument, you always simply say "No." I'm not shifting the burden of proof to you - the burden of proof is on yourself for disagreeing with me in the first place, especially when I quote rules.

For example: if someone were to say that all guns shot fish in SR and you said that they do not, the way to "win" this is not to simply yell back and forth at each other but to quote a place where guns are loaded with bullets and not fish. I'm not asking you to prove me wrong, I'm asking you to prove yourself right.

EDIT:

Are you sure? I was under the impression Walker Mode granted the equivalent of cyberlegs, just like Mechanical Arm granted the equivalent of cyberarms.

It does not, although I think it's a fair (if used properly) House Rule.

[Yerameyahu]

Honestly, I can't think of any relevant mods or useful effects of treating vehicle legs like cyberlegs. Gecko tips and things are already available. For *real* anthroforms, sure.

[Irion]

@Neraph

And RAW discussions with you are impossible because where I actually quote rules sections in my argument, you always simply say "No." I'm not shifting the burden of proof to you - the burden of proof is on yourself for disagreeing with me in the first place, especially when I quote rules.

Who quoted rules here? I did.
Who just handwaved them? You did.

if someone were to say that all guns shot fish in SR and you said that they do not, the way to "win" this is not to simply yell back and forth at each other but to quote a place where guns are loaded with bullets and not fish. I'm not asking you to prove me wrong, I'm asking you to prove yourself right.

And thats where you are wrong. You have to provide at least hints, that the guns are shooting fish.
Thats exactly what shifting the burden of proof means.

[Machiavelli]

And again. "Master of RAW" vs. "Master of RAI".....Fight!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Clearly in order to survive a shot from any ordinance pointed in your general direction.

Think of it this way:
If all the players are arming up and armoring up in expectation of the GM hitting them with a giant hammer, you build to survive the giant hammer.
Yes. Every run is going to be a guns blazing run, but that's apparently how TJ's games go: if we do any guns blazing, it won't be any fun because the only tactically viable solution is to be able to survive thor shots, therefor every run is not a guns blazing run.

I Am really curious how you got the impression that our games are centered around Blazing Guns and Characters with 30 Armor. I have never said that in the least. On the Pink Mohawk, we have our Primary GM, who centers around a 2 or so on the scale. With our current GM (Primary is taking a small break), the Scale slides to a 9. This is a rarity. And we still do not have 30 points of Armor. *Shakes Head*

Where did you get that impression from Draco18s? Maybe you are thinking of Hermit, Cain, or Neraph.

At our table, Average Skill ratings are in the 2-3 range, Armor at about 10, and the Dice Pools for Primary abilities are about 14; even in the Current Campaign we are running with our Pink Mohawk GM. I am just flabbergasted that you think we are all about the Guns Blazing. I tend to prefer, even in a PM Game, that we accomplish our goals with as little "Guns Blazing" as possible, and generally only as a last option.

[Draco18s]

I Am really curious how you got the impression that our games are centered around Blazing Guns and Characters with 30 Armor.

Reread.

but that's apparently how TJ's games go: if we do any guns blazing, it won't be any fun because the only tactically viable solution is to be able to survive thor shots, therefor every run is not a guns blazing run.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But, this is what you said...

If all the players are arming up and armoring up in expectation of the GM hitting them with a giant hammer, you build to survive the giant hammer. Yes. Every run is going to be a guns blazing run, but that's apparently how TJ's games go...

Which is what I don't understand. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems like you think (directly from your quote above) that our games are continuous run and gun, which is not the case, at all.

No worries though... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

@Neraph

Who quoted rules here? I did.
Who just handwaved them? You did.

Yes, you selectively quoted rules, taking them out of context. Yes, I "handwaived" rules (you mean paraphrased, right?) by stating the same information using my own words. I'm not going to start it up here, since this is supposed to be about Concealment (a couple pages ago it was, too).

And thats where you are wrong. You have to provide at least hints, that the guns are shooting fish.
Thats exactly what shifting the burden of proof means.

All you need is an idea to assert a claim. You need to quote rules to try and prove your side. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Whenever one disagrees with someone else, the person in disagreement should quote rules or bring proof that their idea is valid. That is the very nature of the burden of proof.

[Draco18s]

Which is what I don't understand. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems like you think (directly from your quote above) that our games are continuous run and gun, which is not the case, at all.

I meant it in the way that due to the way you present your opinions and interpretations of the rules that if your group plays a Guns blazing game, everyone will be rolling around in virtual tanks, so you guys don't.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I meant it in the way that due to the way you present your opinions and interpretations of the rules that if your group plays a Guns blazing game, everyone will be rolling around in virtual tanks, so you guys don't.

Ahhh... Now I understand. No Worries. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)