[X] My Assistant

[Kirk]

Modified DV. The question is what goes into "modified" and what comes later.


Since you apparently think that a secondary source which is clearly labeled as providing only an abridged description ("summary") is superior to the full primary source: If I wrote an IMDB summary claiming that Chewie is Luke Skywalker's father, would I change Star Wars canon and label the movies irrelevant?

BS argument. The summary is not external to the rules, but is an integrated part, written by the same people.

It is, in the context you're describing, a recap from one of the characters that includes a "what this means" statement within it.

Your example is more similar to a house rule.

[Sengir]

BS argument. The summary is not external to the rules, but is an integrated part, written by the same people.

Then take the abstract of a paper, written by the same author. I've seen all sorts of sensationalist abstracts which claim stuff totally not supported by the proper paper. Or in less serious cases, the author simply generalized some stuff further elaborated in the paper.

And no, "what's said about one table applies for all" just doesn't work that way.

[Mäx]

So you're really saying that they should have wasted precious word count and added that same line about armor for all narrow burst entries.
Instead of the current version that includes one full description of the rules and a pair of entries that just list the part that is different.
Doing the first think makes zero sense what so ever, especially as the rules include a summary section restating how the burst dv works.

[Yerameyahu]

Wait… you're assuming the table is not just wrong, but an intentional lie (Chewbacca-Luke)? You're willing to say that the table is a complete error, but not that they left out the caveat from each kind of burst for brevity? And that their intent was for short narrow bursts to behave differently from every other kind of burst?

It strains credulity. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But I'll grant you that it's possible, heh. Especially if you're playing at a 'RAW, no matter how obviously broken or erroneous' table.

[Sengir]

So you're really saying that they should have wasted precious word count and added that same line about armor for all narrow burst entries.

Or, you know, add it to the general description of firearms or armor ONCE...

PS: It's also interesting how you argue that something merely got left out for brevity in one instance, but are fighting tooth and nail against the notion that something merely got left out for brevity in another instance, an instance labeled "summary".

@Y: No, but nice stawman.

[Yerameyahu]

Cool. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) So we've concluded that you're *not* saying the table is wrong, and that the writers' intent was *not* to make narrow short bursts different from every other burst.

You're the one who brought up the ridiculous 'straw man' Star Wars example, bud.

[Mäx]

PS: It's also interesting how you argue that something merely got left out for brevity in one instance, but are fighting tooth and nail against the notion that something merely got left out for brevity in another instance, an instance labeled "summary".

What exactly are you implying got left out from the summary?

also i wound Y summary pretty accurate.

[Yerameyahu]

He's proposing that they meant to write 'Autofire does not count when comparing the modified DV to the modified Armor… for narrow short bursts only', instead of "Autofire does not count when comparing the modified DV to the modified Armor."

[Kirk]

Then take the abstract of a paper, written by the same author. I've seen all sorts of sensationalist abstracts which claim stuff totally not supported by the proper paper. Or in less serious cases, the author simply generalized some stuff further elaborated in the paper.

And no, "what's said about one table applies for all" just doesn't work that way.

Except we have a case of it in the rules so it's at least partially supported.

There are two RAW possibilities.
1) EITHER they did not include it for narrow full and narrow long (for word count or due to brain fart)
2) OR they misprinted "autofire" when they meant "burst fire" in the footnote.

I will note that the same line in the same table is in SR4 as well as SR4A, and that no errata I have (I do not have them all) changes this line. For this reason I am led to believe the first possibility is more likely. It simply requires fewer "errors" to explain.

[Ryu]

Or, you know, add it to the general description of firearms or armor ONCE...

To pg. 149, yes. With a slightly changed wording - the "modified DV" term has to go. Armor Penetration should depend on base DV, ammo mod, and net hits. No need to introduce a fresh term.

[Sengir]

and that the writers' intent was *not* to make narrow short bursts different from every other burst.

I'm saying that IF they had intended that rule for all burst and automatic fire, they could have simply added it in a more central place. Since they did not, it apparently only affects that subgroup where it was mentioned.

You're the one who brought up the ridiculous 'straw man' Star Wars example, bud.

Strawman != analogy.

[Yerameyahu]

Your implication was that I believed that (utterly preposterous) analogy, and that my position was therefore ludicrous.

They added it to a very central place: the table. And yes, therefore you are saying they purposefully made narrow short (2-3 bullet) bursts add +0 to modified DV, while Long (including 4 and 5 bullet) get the full +5 (or 3, 4), and full bursts get the full +9 (or 14, etc). That's a truly strange inconsistency, though again *possible*.

[Sengir]

Your implication was that I believed that (utterly preposterous) analogy, and that my position was therefore ludicrous.

I showed that your argument makes no sense by showing that it leads to consequences everybody, yourself included, considers preposterous. It's called reductio ad absurdum.

That's a truly strange inconsistency, though again *possible*.

If short narrow bursts had a straight +2 DV without the "does not count when comparing armor" clause they'd probably be a bit too good. An AR would punch through most body armor twice per IP. On the other hand, if a long burst (restricted to once per IP) has a better chance of penetrating armor than a single shot I'm fine with that.

[Yerameyahu]

Except it's a straw man when someone else does it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes: possible, though inconsistent. It requires 3 bullets to act totally different from 4+ bullets.

[Shortstraw]

The summary on p. 150 is just that, a summary -- a short and necessarily imprecise recapitulation which should never take precedence over the original text. If the abstract of a paper says A and the full text says A but also B, the full text wins.

Except the text does not say anything about modified DV only the chart does so there is no contradiction. Also the general rule is that autofire adds to the damage, the specific rule is that it does NOT apply to the modified damage value for the purposes of beating armour.

[Yerameyahu]

It's the idea that a 'summary' is 'necessarily' incorrect that kills me. The whole point of those tables is to *accurately* condense the rules.

[Shortstraw]

Aha, read page 149 the compare armor section.
Add the net hits scored to the base Damage Value of the attack; this is the modified Damage Value.

Q.E.D

[Mäx]

For added clarity of how the rules work according the the devs, the following is from Runners Tool Kit ranged combat cheat sheet.

17. Add your net hits to your weapon + ammo DV; this is your modifi ed
DV. If this number is greater than the defender’s armor modifi ed
by your weapon + ammo AP, it causes Physical damage, otherwise
it causes Stun damage.
18. If your fi re mode is one of the narrow bursts, add one less than the
number of rounds in the burst to your modifi ed DV.

Edit: Shortstraw the problem with that page is that according to it you never ably the damage bonus from narrow burst, as it's not mentioned at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

But, at least it's a different problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

That does seem to be a helpful quote, Mäx, if anyone were genuinely confused or doubtful in good faith.

[Shortstraw]

You will note on that the extra damage is applied AFTER it is compared to armour.

[Sengir]

It's the idea that a 'summary' is 'necessarily' incorrect that kills me.

Then you should really learn how to write a summary. As Oxford puts it, a summary is "a brief statement or account of the main points of something" and accordingly imprecise because it leaves out some points. If your "summary" includes each and every aspect of the original text you rephrased it but did not summarize.

And we've already had page 149, which leaves out damage modifiers both before and after Armor...RT on the other hand is new and admittedly unambiguous. I guess we'll keep it as a houserule anyway.

[Yerameyahu]

There's a gulf between 'imprecise' and 'incorrect'.

[Ryu]

Then you should really learn how to write a summary. As Oxford puts it, a summary is "a brief statement or account of the main points of something" and accordingly imprecise because it leaves out some points. If your "summary" includes each and every aspect of the original text you rephrased it but did not summarize.

And we've already had page 149, which leaves out damage modifiers both before and after Armor...RT on the other hand is new and admittedly unambiguous. I guess we'll keep it as a houserule anyway.

By all means, if it has a benefit for your play - and you already told us that - create a houserule.

[Lanlaorn]

The "benefit" is that a guy with a machine gun can mow down spirits and tanks.

[Saint Sithney]

By all means, if it has a benefit for your play - and you already told us that - create a houserule.

Pretty sure they have.

Maybe they'll realize it someday.