Lightning Reflexes, Any thoughts Options

[SpellBinder]

Until someone shoots your drone and your rolling feedback because it was damaged and you were hotsimming it..

Which is why any hot-simming rigger worth his gear is going to be running the best SOTA biofeedback filter with ergonomic and other program options to help keep it running whenever he/she is jumped in. To do so otherwise is to be called a 'meat popsicle'.

[Neraph]

Don't forget you can hotsim your comm and Remote Control the drone. 5 IP and you use your SOTA Command program instead of the skills you don't have.

[Udoshi]

Command replaces Attributes, not skills.

Still. Command 6+ is hella good.

Enough to make up the difference for a low or skillwired skill.

[Neraph]

Command replaces Attributes, not skills.

Still. Command 6+ is hella good.

Enough to make up the difference for a low or skillwired skill.

Hrm.. Oh well, I thought I had that right.

Makes R6 Command (R3 Optimized) programs pretty darn good for only like 900 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , doesn't it?

[phlapjack77]

Also, drugs IP-boosting stacks with drugs, but not with Magic or Technology, so that Jazz won't help your Wires or your Increases.

Is there a rule on this you can point me at? I've never seen this before.

[Neraph]

Is there a rule on this you can point me at? I've never seen this before.

SR4A, page 67, Initiative Passes (basic rule).
SR4A, page 74, Spending Edge, fifth bullet (Edge rule).
SR4A, page 145, Initiative Passes (basic rule expanded).
SR4A, page 196, Improved Reflexes, third sentence ("cannot be combined with technological or other means").
SR4A, page 208, Increase Reflexes, third sentence ("a single Increase Reflexes spell at a time").
SR4A, page 226, Cold Sim, second paragraph, second sentence ("receive an extra Initiative Pass").
SR4A, page 226, Hot Sim, second paragraph, second sentence ("receive two extra Initiative Passes").
SR4A, page 254, Effect (general rule).
SR4A, page 257, Cram (nothing saying it can't combine).
SR4A, page 257, Jazz (nothing saying it can't combine).
SR4A, page 258, Kamikaze (nothing saying it can't combine).
SR4A, page 342, Wired Reflexes, fourth sentence ("cannot be combined with any other form of Initiative enhancement").
SR4A, page 347, Synaptic Booster, third sentence ("cannot be combined with any other form of Initiative enhancements").
Augmentation, page 41, Move-By-Wire System, third paragraph ("cannot be combined with any other form of Initiative enhancement").

That's all I feel like finding for you at the moment, but here's a rundown:
The rule is specific for each item that affects your Initiative/Passes. Wired Reflexes, Move-By-Wire, Synaptic Boosters, Improved Reflexes, and Increase Reflexes specifically state that they do not stack with anything else, whereas the effects of drugs, VR (cold or hot), and Edge says nothing about it. By inference, since the other forms specifically disallow stacking that means the general rule is to allow stacking. Even if you have Kamikaze, Cram, Jazz, and spend Edge you are still limited to your 4 IP. Only the Simsense Accelerator (Unwired, page 198) specifically allows this stacking to go above 4 IP, and only while in Hot Sim.

[phlapjack77]

...snip....

Thanks for doing this work. Seems like a lot of references are needed to arrive at this inference. Maybe the next edition can be more explicit.

[Neraph]

There aren't a lot of references needed to come to that conclusion - I posted nearly all the information about Initiative Passes at all in the Core Book and cited why. I mean, all the way back to the basics about what Initiative Passes are.

[phlapjack77]

I think the fact that you feel it necessary to quote all those references to make your point is telling about how the IP-stacking rules could be improved in the next version, is all.

[Jaid]

I think the fact that you feel it necessary to quote all those references to make your point is telling about how the IP-stacking rules could be improved in the next version, is all.

not really.

most of those are rules that tell you something doesn't stack. it already is explicit, by default. +1 initiative pass means you get +1 initiative pass, just like +1 agility means you get +1 agility. there's no rule that tells you having 2 sources of +1 agility stack, because why wouldn't they?

the only reason *any* form of IP increase wouldn't stack is that it explicitly says so.

[phlapjack77]

not really.

most of those are rules that tell you something doesn't stack. it already is explicit, by default. +1 initiative pass means you get +1 initiative pass, just like +1 agility means you get +1 agility. there's no rule that tells you having 2 sources of +1 agility stack, because why wouldn't they?

the only reason *any* form of IP increase wouldn't stack is that it explicitly says so.

To prove his point, he had to list that large block of rules.

Why are there some IP enhancers that stack, and some that don't? This seems like needless complexity. Because the bulk of IP enhancers don't stack, why can't there be one sentence for drugs stating "Drugs can stack with any IP enhancers, including other drugs", instead of making you look at a bunch of other rules to come to this conclusion. My opinion is because the author of the drugs section didn't consider this situation.

I'm advocating for clearer rules on this issue, and you're saying it's already clear...even though to prove your point, a large block of associated rules must be referenced and inferred from.

Anywho, this is way off topic, so sorry about that.

[Neraph]

To prove his point, he had to list that large block of rules.

Why are there some IP enhancers that stack, and some that don't? This seems like needless complexity. Because the bulk of IP enhancers don't stack, why can't there be one sentence for drugs stating "Drugs can stack with any IP enhancers, including other drugs", instead of making you look at a bunch of other rules to come to this conclusion. My opinion is because the author of the drugs section didn't consider this situation.

I'm advocating for clearer rules on this issue, and you're saying it's already clear...even though to prove your point, a large block of associated rules must be referenced and inferred from.

Anywho, this is way off topic, so sorry about that.

Again, I did not need to list all those sources; I simply did for completions' sake. That's why I said:

There aren't a lot of references needed to come to that conclusion - I posted nearly all the information about Initiative Passes at all in the Core Book and cited why. I mean, all the way back to the basics about what Initiative Passes are.

[StealthSigma]

Possibly a third pass may be necessary if and only if every opponent you're facing has a third pass--pointless to go beyond the same number as the opposition, and far too high in both essence and nuyen cost. Four passes will really never be necessary (highly doubtful any corp would put enough resources into a single individual for that kind of speed).

Generally, I consider one more IP than your opposition to be warranted. Otherwise you run the risk of ending up burning all your IPs doing nothing but defending or end up exposing yourself in order to attack.

--

Personally, I'd be loath to play a character with only a single IP, but the opportunity cost for 4 generally seems too high. I tend to agree with TJ - 2 IP for characters not about combat (faces, non-combat mages, hackers, infiltration specialists, and so on), and 3 otherwise. It's different on the matrix of course, since everything thats even half-way important there runs on 3 IPs at least.

I run a 2 IP combat character. However, he's a combat marksman who has two combat teammates that are very much "in your face" so he's rarely the closest to the enemy. I don't feel I need that 3rd IP for defensive options and cost effectiveness told me that spending nuyen/karma on other stuff was a much better overall expenditure.

[Jaid]

To prove his point, he had to list that large block of rules.

Why are there some IP enhancers that stack, and some that don't? This seems like needless complexity. Because the bulk of IP enhancers don't stack, why can't there be one sentence for drugs stating "Drugs can stack with any IP enhancers, including other drugs", instead of making you look at a bunch of other rules to come to this conclusion. My opinion is because the author of the drugs section didn't consider this situation.

I'm advocating for clearer rules on this issue, and you're saying it's already clear...even though to prove your point, a large block of associated rules must be referenced and inferred from.

Anywho, this is way off topic, so sorry about that.

no. all the other references except the drugs in question show that those other things *don't* stack. the only reason you think you need a rule is because you're familiar with other rules that explicitly call out that something specific doesn't stack.

the other references are not required to show that drugs stack. they're required because your brain has erroneously already told you that IPs never stack, by pointing out that they are not a general rule. there doesn't need to be a rule that says IPs stack unless otherwise indicated, any more than there needs to be a rule that says agility bonuses stack unless otherwise indicated. you only think there needs to be one because you had decided that the specific rules dealing with certain things were for some reason general rules.

[All4BigGuns]

Generally, I consider one more IP than your opposition to be warranted. Otherwise you run the risk of ending up burning all your IPs doing nothing but defending or end up exposing yourself in order to attack.

Never had a problem, except a few instances where the dice completely boned me on soak rolls, in which case it wouldn't have helped because those cases were several opponents acting all at once spraying full auto or a rocket launcher that scattered back toward the team when fired by an ally.

[StealthSigma]

Never had a problem, except a few instances where the dice completely boned me on soak rolls, in which case it wouldn't have helped because those cases were several opponents acting all at once spraying full auto or a rocket launcher that scattered back toward the team when fired by an ally.

It's more useful for melee and pistol oriented characters (IMO).

[All4BigGuns]

Well, all I've been saying is that having more than 2 passes (even if it puts you as equal in passes to the opposition) isn't necessary in my experience. Combats generally end by the time the second pass is over, so having more than 2 is kind of a waste.

[phlapjack77]

Again, I did not need to list all those sources; I simply did for completions' sake.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fact that you can't point at a particular sentence, or even a particular paragraph, but instead have to post, what, 14 page references, for "completions' sake"? I think this means the rules could be made clearer.

no. all the other references except the drugs in question show that those other things *don't* stack. the only reason you think you need a rule is because you're familiar with other rules that explicitly call out that something specific doesn't stack.

the other references are not required to show that drugs stack. they're required because your brain has erroneously already told you that IPs never stack, by pointing out that they are not a general rule. there doesn't need to be a rule that says IPs stack unless otherwise indicated, any more than there needs to be a rule that says agility bonuses stack unless otherwise indicated. you only think there needs to be one because you had decided that the specific rules dealing with certain things were for some reason general rules.

My brain is telling me, there are enough exceptions to IPs stacking (including the main ways to get extra IPs (cyber, bio, magic)) that it could have been made clear how drugs worked with one sentence in the rule book. That's it, and for you to say otherwise is...

[Neraph]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fact that you can't point at a particular sentence, or even a particular paragraph, but instead have to post, what, 14 page references, for "completions' sake"? I think this means the rules could be made clearer.


My brain is telling me, there are enough exceptions to IPs stacking (including the main ways to get extra IPs (cyber, bio, magic)) that it could have been made clear how drugs worked with one sentence in the rule book. That's it, and for you to say otherwise is...

I can sum it up quite easily: show me where it says they don't stack. Only cyber, bio, and magic specifically state that they (as in, the entries that list it) explicitly don't stack. Therefore, everything else does stack.

EDIT: I could also use some hyperbole things like "can you point to a particular sentence, or even a particular paragraph, that states that metahumans can't fly? How about that metahumans don't get back up 10 CT after their Damage Overflow is filled out and be perfectly fine?" The rules are not all explicit; many are inferred (like death being permanent or no flying trolls).

EDIT EDIT: Depending on your definition of "Initiative enhancement" (does it mean any form of initiative, including passes, or just the Initiative derived attribute?), all IP-enhancing forms stack - it'd just be the Reaction from cyber, bio, and magic that doesn't stack for determining the derived attribute of Initiative.

[Jaid]

I can sum it up quite easily: show me where it says they don't stack. Only cyber, bio, and magic specifically state that they (as in, the entries that list it) explicitly don't stack. Therefore, everything else does stack.

EDIT: I could also use some hyperbole things like "can you point to a particular sentence, or even a particular paragraph, that states that metahumans can't fly? How about that metahumans don't get back up 10 CT after their Damage Overflow is filled out and be perfectly fine?" The rules are not all explicit; many are inferred (like death being permanent or no flying trolls).

EDIT EDIT: Depending on your definition of "Initiative enhancement" (does it mean any form of initiative, including passes, or just the Initiative derived attribute?), all IP-enhancing forms stack - it'd just be the Reaction from cyber, bio, and magic that doesn't stack for determining the derived attribute of Initiative.

an even simpler, less hyperbole-driven one: is there a sentence anywhere indicating that things which boost any of your stats stack?

[phlapjack77]

I can sum it up quite easily: show me where it says they don't stack. Only cyber, bio, and magic specifically state that they (as in, the entries that list it) explicitly don't stack. Therefore, everything else does stack.

EDIT: I could also use some hyperbole things like "can you point to a particular sentence, or even a particular paragraph, that states that metahumans can't fly? How about that metahumans don't get back up 10 CT after their Damage Overflow is filled out and be perfectly fine?" The rules are not all explicit; many are inferred (like death being permanent or no flying trolls).

EDIT EDIT: Depending on your definition of "Initiative enhancement" (does it mean any form of initiative, including passes, or just the Initiative derived attribute?), all IP-enhancing forms stack - it'd just be the Reaction from cyber, bio, and magic that doesn't stack for determining the derived attribute of Initiative.

See, if you had said this at the start, that might have been it. But that you felt the need to post so many references at first, it seems you felt it's not actually so clear. Wouldn't it be simpler if there were one sentence in the rulebook saying this?

The flying thing, come on. I'll pretend you didn't bring this silliness up. I agree with you about rules not always having to be explicit, it's even part of my sig. Really obvious things, like your flying or Damage overflow example, I agree those don't need explicit rules. But I think this IP part isn't so obvious and could use some explicit rules.

As for your EDIT EDIT, I actually agree with you here, and I agree this section of the rules could also use some refinement in editing and clarification.

[FuelDrop]

[Paranoid (10 bp)] I reckon that whoever's employed to maintain these forums must be sabotaging Catylist's rule books to make sure that the rules are not clear and concise, as that way we keep arguing about them and they get to keep their jobs. Also, the Illuminati monitor this site for potential test subjects in their bio engineering experiments. The small plastic components on the end of shoelaces are called aglets, their true purpose is sinister. Gotta sign off now before they lock onto my location. You can't stop the signal! [/Paranoid]

I wonder where all that came from?

[Lionhearted]

That's a positive quality for runners innit?

[FuelDrop]

That's a positive quality for runners innit?

Damned right it is, and it also gives you extra points! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

See, if you had said this at the start, that might have been it. But that you felt the need to post so many references at first, it seems you felt it's not actually so clear. Wouldn't it be simpler if there were one sentence in the rulebook saying this?

When it was originally proposed to me on these boards, that's all they said ("show me where it says you can't"). I posted all the references in the books that you'd look at if I asked you that same question.