Used 'ware, It's a surprisingly strong option Options

[Jaid]

That was almost Yogi Berra worthy.

However, it still doesn't address that even RAW doesn't support your reading of the rules any better than it supports mine, and my reading is supported by the rules for every other component-based cyberware in the game.

every other component-based cyberware in the game tells you that if you install something into something else, it has to be the same grade, so far as i'm aware.

as such, treating the cyberdeck as a separate item would still lead to the same situation; it has to be used grade, which means it is 75% of the cost of standard grade.

[binarywraith]

I always thought the Used Cyberware rules were horribly under-written. RAW, you were technically able to get Used Deltaware, even though Deltaware, by fluff, was custom-engineered for use with YOUR SPECIFIC body, which is, at best, unlikely for something cut off of another person's corpse. I was under the impression that both Alpha and Beta grades were also, to some degree, tailored to the individual.

There should have been, and still should be, a notation for Used to always count as Used Standard Grade. After all, if it wasn't tailored for YOU, then why should you get the bonuses?

Srsly

Used is a grade. You cannot have multiple grades on a single piece of cyberware, and all accessories must be of matching grade. Therefore, no used Alpha/Beta/Delta.

Seems simple enough.

[X-Kalibur]

That's exactly the discrepancy I was talking about. "Official errata" or not, the book is straight-up conflicting between those two sentences. And I'm going to take the word of the Line Developer as the canon answer until an official errata happens.

I wouldn't trust the line developer to give you the canon answer either. Nothing against Jason, but even the FAQ they had for SR4 was riddled with incorrect stuff.

[Abstruse]

I wouldn't trust the line developer to give you the canon answer either. Nothing against Jason, but even the FAQ they had for SR4 was riddled with incorrect stuff.

Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?

[binarywraith]

Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?

You'd honestly be better off asking Bull. The Missions answers are pretty canon, and he's generally got a good explanation for why they are what they are.

[Abstruse]

You'd honestly be better off asking Bull. The Missions answers are pretty canon, and he's generally got a good explanation for why they are what they are.

I think Bull's too busy having an anxiety attack under his desk knowing the SR5 Missions stuff has to be ready by the end of the week to answer random rules questions.

[Abstruse]

every other component-based cyberware in the game tells you that if you install something into something else, it has to be the same grade, so far as i'm aware.

as such, treating the cyberdeck as a separate item would still lead to the same situation; it has to be used grade, which means it is 75% of the cost of standard grade.

I've given you clear evidence for the reading of the rules I stated. It's the obvious intent of the designers. But go ahead and keep trying to defend your munchkiny power-gamer reading that's obviously conflicting with every other rule for gear in the game just so you can get a neater deck at chargen. I feel sorry for your GM, I really do.

[X-Kalibur]

Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?

Neither, really. Jason is the line developer, he doesn't have his hand (directly) in every single rules bit that goes in.

[Jaid]

I've given you clear evidence for the reading of the rules I stated. It's the obvious intent of the designers. But go ahead and keep trying to defend your munchkiny power-gamer reading that's obviously conflicting with every other rule for gear in the game just so you can get a neater deck at chargen. I feel sorry for your GM, I really do.

"it shouldn't say that" is not the same thing as "it doesn't agree with the other rules". if you have any actual examples of other rules that it disagrees with, feel free to state them. the only vague reference you've made to other rules is the implanted commlink, which says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding how it interacts with cyberware grades.

i already said several times that i don't think it's supposed to work like that. i've also made it perfectly clear that right now, it says that you can get your cyberdeck (and, for that matter, commlink) at a discount if you get a used one.

[Rubic]

"it shouldn't say that" is not the same thing as "it doesn't agree with the other rules". if you have any actual examples of other rules that it disagrees with, feel free to state them. the only vague reference you've made to other rules is the implanted commlink, which says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding how it interacts with cyberware grades.

i already said several times that i don't think it's supposed to work like that. i've also made it perfectly clear that right now, it says that you can get your cyberdeck (and, for that matter, commlink) at a discount if you get a used one.

I think it's fine to allow Used Cyberdecks as an implant. A device rating 1 cyberdeck would be incredibly easy to jam (it's 1 step below Basic Cyberware). Remember, you can't cherry pick when your rules apply to you and when they don't; you have to keep it consistent. I'd happly let players purchase that discounted deck and make it nigh useless in the process. What's that, you payed to have the best cyberdeck money can buy implanted as Standard Cyberware? So, disabled by Noise rating 2. Done, and DONE!!

Edit:

Alternative interpretations:
As Cyberdecks would count as security devices, along the spectrum of Corporate (Rating 3) thru Black Ops (Rating 5), you can divvy up the decks into categories of the 3 different grades by pricing (first 1/2 are DevR 3, The following 1/3 at DevR 4, and the remainder are DevR 5). Accordingly, you'd need an equivalent grade of ware to implant them as (Alphaware for DevR 3, Betaware for DevR 4, Deltaware for DevR 5). This, of course, excludes cyberdecks as being implanted as Standard or Used Grade Ware, or even as parts thereof.

The only OTHER possible interpretation, while following a consistent ruling for this, would be to treat the Implant side of it as the cyberware, and the Deck side as a Deck, which is your main counterpoint.

Otherwise, you're just poking your funstick into the rules at odd places.

[Abstruse]

"it shouldn't say that" is not the same thing as "it doesn't agree with the other rules". if you have any actual examples of other rules that it disagrees with, feel free to state them. the only vague reference you've made to other rules is the implanted commlink, which says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding how it interacts with cyberware grades.

i already said several times that i don't think it's supposed to work like that. i've also made it perfectly clear that right now, it says that you can get your cyberdeck (and, for that matter, commlink) at a discount if you get a used one.

I've already quoted the rules involved. Go read my previous posts. I never said "It shouldn't say that". You're reading the rules in a very narrow and specific way contrary to every other rule in the book so that you can get an advantage for your character that goes against both the rules as written and rules as intended. That is the definition of a munchkin.

[Jaid]

cyberdecks have a specified device rating. general rule overridden by specific.

that said, a jammer will shut down pretty much *any* chargen cyberdeck if you have a good one. the best cyberdeck you can get legitimately in chargen (ie not cheesing your way to a higher avail/cost model) is device rating 4, as i recall. a rating 6 directional jammer costs 1200 nuyen.

unless of course you actually invest in noise reduction... but then again, who cares? if you're doing anything important, it's probably through a direct connection to a device anyways, which means no noise.

the only time it would be "bad" is if your opponents are actually dumb enough to leave their gear completely exposed wireless and don't have massively superior matrix guns, and even then it only means anything if just using a gun isn't the better solution (note: most of the time, just using a gun will be the better solution, even if you do have an awesome deck).

[GiraffeShaman]

BTW, confirmed from Jason Hardy, used cyberware is NOT available at character creation.

Thank you for the link. As you saw, I followed you over there to demand some answers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[quentra]

Thank you for the link. As you saw, I followed you over there to demand some answers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Hardy must really hate sams.

[phlapjack77]

What...the...hell ?!?!? No used cyberware at chargen? I call bullshit.

I try not to be too negative, really. I try to approach this new system with an open mind and a positive attitude. But this kind of stuff...it really, really makes it difficult to stay positive.

[Abstruse]

Hardy must really hate sams.

Except when he hates technomancers. Or adepts. Or riggers. Or deckers. Or shamen. Or mages. Or mystic adepts. Or faces.

Seriously, I have heard every single possible build argued that it's been "nerfed" or it's "overpowered" now. Every single one. And frankly, after playing around with the system over the past month or so, none of them hold water. Yes, the various rules changed. No one's overpowered compared to anyone else now as far as I can tell. You can overspecialize and build something far more badass, or you can spread yourself too thin trying to do too much with a single character. Like pretty much every single other edition of the game.

Now I have a question for everyone complaining that this character or that character got nerfed:

Have you actually played the game yet?

I don't mean just making characters or diddling around. I mean actually run a combat with the characters. Or sat around a table with people and played them. Because based on what I've been seeing on these forums, every single person has already put in thousands of hours playing this edition because they all KNOW exactly what works and what doesn't for a game that hasn't even been out a fragging WEEK yet.

[RelentlessImp]

Except when he hates technomancers. Or adepts. Or riggers. Or deckers. Or shamen. Or mages. Or mystic adepts. Or faces.

Seriously, I have heard every single possible build argued that it's been "nerfed" or it's "overpowered" now. Every single one. And frankly, after playing around with the system over the past month or so, none of them hold water. Yes, the various rules changed. No one's overpowered compared to anyone else now as far as I can tell. You can overspecialize and build something far more badass, or you can spread yourself too thin trying to do too much with a single character. Like pretty much every single other edition of the game.

Now I have a question for everyone complaining that this character or that character got nerfed:

Have you actually played the game yet?

I don't mean just making characters or diddling around. I mean actually run a combat with the characters. Or sat around a table with people and played them. Because based on what I've been seeing on these forums, every single person has already put in thousands of hours playing this edition because they all KNOW exactly what works and what doesn't for a game that hasn't even been out a fragging WEEK yet.

I generally hold the same opinion as you here, but with a caveat. There's a saying on the various CharOp boards for D&D that basically boils down to: your personal play experience doesn't mean diddly squat. If it doesn't math, or it maths in a way that makes Option A or Option B objectively bad, then it's bad, full stop. Paizo ran into this problem with Pathfinder during their 'beta test' - they deleted every reference of problems with the system and promoted posts that didn't use the system but sat around all night roleplaying.

Problem is: Nobody's offering actual math here. They're just saying "This sucks" rather than providing evidence to back it up. Either give mathematical evidence that this option or that one is objectively bad or overpowered or QUIT WHINGEING.

[phlapjack77]

RelentlessImp, it's kind of insulting to tell people (I guess that includes me) to quit whin(ge)ing. I guess you're frustrated, but surely you can see that others are as well, perhaps for different reasons? And aren't you whining about other people whining? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for the "maths" thing - I sort of agree, in a way. And yet, not everything in a game is pure math. Can I objectively prove that the wireless bonuses for the free/simple action things are bad, with math? No, it's not provable objectively because it's a subjective statement. Is it still a remarkably bad implementation? Well, I certainly think so.

[RelentlessImp]

RelentlessImp, it's kind of insulting to tell people (I guess that includes me) to quit whin(ge)ing. I guess you're frustrated, but surely you can see that others are as well, perhaps for different reasons? And aren't you whining about other people whining? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for the "maths" thing - I sort of agree, in a way. And yet, not everything in a game is pure math. Can I objectively prove that the wireless bonuses for the free/simple action things are bad, with math? No, it's not provable objectively because it's a subjective statement. Is it still a remarkably bad implementation? Well, I certainly think so.

When the "game" part is deliberately driven by mathematics with fairly simple formula used for absolutely everything? Yeah, everything in the "game" part *is* pure math. Anything not mathematically driven is generally roleplaying-based, which, when you're discussing the system and not the setting means diddly. Wireless bonuses? You can bitch all day that it doesn't fit the setting. And you can likely figure out how badly being wireless connected screws you when you run into a decker, how much you depend on those wireless bonuses and how bad you are without them, and run a formula on that and likely prove they are objectively bad.

And honestly, I'm just sick of everyone slamming the hell out of the developers without offering any form of constructive criticism. There's a place for destructive criticism, absolutely - but you can be less hostile about it than people are being.

[kzt]

Okay, so the guy in charge of managing everything published for the game and who is the only person giving straight answers as to rules interpretations is NOT the person to listen to, but instead I should go with what random people off Dumpshock say instead?

Yes. You'll get answers that make sense and actually work in normal play outside of the "steel rails to the horizon" concept of play that CGL has embraced.

Remember "guy in charge of managing everything published for the game" is the guy who edited and approved a book that had a city at 8,612 ft and located 130 miles from the ocean with a major port. The one where the eco activists go all nuts because someone is planting trees? Just for good measure, Bogotá is above the treeline too...

[phlapjack77]

And honestly, I'm just sick of everyone slamming the hell out of the developers without offering any form of constructive criticism. There's a place for destructive criticism, absolutely - but you can be less hostile about it than people are being.

So you're frustrated with X, and posting on DS about your frustration with X in a less than constructive way ("QUIT WHINGEING")...don't you think you're engaging in the same behavior that you're accusing others of?

When the "game" part is deliberately driven by mathematics with fairly simple formula used for absolutely everything? Yeah, everything in the "game" part *is* pure math. Anything not mathematically driven is generally roleplaying-based, which, when you're discussing the system and not the setting means diddly. Wireless bonuses? You can bitch all day that it doesn't fit the setting. And you can likely figure out how badly being wireless connected screws you when you run into a decker, how much you depend on those wireless bonuses and how bad you are without them, and run a formula on that and likely prove they are objectively bad.

I disagree with your definition - the game involves rules (crunch) and setting (fluff) together. If the game said that you needed to wear a glowing pink bunny suit to get your Sneaking bonus, how would you prove mathematically that it's a bad idea?

[RelentlessImp]

So you're frustrated with X, and posting on DS about your frustration with X in a less than constructive way ("QUIT WHINGEING")...don't you think you're engaging in the same behavior that you're accusing others of?

Of course I am. I never pretended to not be at least a little hypocritical. Plus when you show people how they're acting by doing the same in opposition to them, it holds up a mirror and maybe makes them realize what a twat they're being.

I disagree with your definition - the game involves rules (crunch) and setting (fluff) together. If the game said that you needed to wear a glowing pink bunny suit to get your Sneaking bonus, how would you prove mathematically that it's a bad idea?

The "game" involves rules (crunch) - full stop. The "setting" may be more closely married to the crunch than most, but there is still a delineation between the two. When you're using the rules, you're playing the game; when you're not, you're roleplaying in its setting.

On your example; strawman. it's not possible to respond mathematically without the numbers and crunch involved. If, instead, you said:

GLOWING PINK BUNNY SUIT
-Provides a +2 dice pool modifier to Sneaking.
-Provides your opponents a +3 dice pool modifier to Perception tests to notice you.

Then I could point out that the Perception modifier is greater than the Sneaking modifier and thus it's a bad idea. Again, providing any sort of argument without numeric proofs is exactly what everybody else is doing, and what I object to; if you're not going to show your work as to why something is bad, then shut up. Offer opinions, offer criticism - but don't just scream "THIS IS BAD".

[X-Kalibur]

Yes. You'll get answers that make sense and actually work in normal play outside of the "steel rails to the horizon" concept of play that CGL has embraced.

Remember "guy in charge of managing everything published for the game" is the guy who edited and approved a book that had a city at 8,612 ft and located 130 miles from the ocean with a major port. The one where the eco activists go all nuts because someone is planting trees? Just for good measure, Bogotá is above the treeline too...

I was going to throw in the SR4 FAQ with this but it appears to have up and disappeared.

[X-Kalibur]

Of course I am. I never pretended to not be at least a little hypocritical. Plus when you show people how they're acting by doing the same in opposition to them, it holds up a mirror and maybe makes them realize what a twat they're being.


The "game" involves rules (crunch) - full stop. The "setting" may be more closely married to the crunch than most, but there is still a delineation between the two. When you're using the rules, you're playing the game; when you're not, you're roleplaying in its setting.

On your example; strawman. it's not possible to respond mathematically without the numbers and crunch involved. If, instead, you said:

GLOWING PINK BUNNY SUIT
-Provides a +2 dice pool modifier to Sneaking.
-Provides your opponents a +3 dice pool modifier to Perception tests to notice you.

Then I could point out that the Perception modifier is greater than the Sneaking modifier and thus it's a bad idea. Again, providing any sort of argument without numeric proofs is exactly what everybody else is doing, and what I object to; if you're not going to show your work as to why something is bad, then shut up. Offer opinions, offer criticism - but don't just scream "THIS IS BAD".

Actually, we've done all of the above in regards to the wireless bonuses. Speaking of opinions, mine is that you should remove yourself from your keyboard for a little while before you burst a vein.

[RelentlessImp]

Actually, we've done all of the above in regards to the wireless bonuses. Speaking of opinions, mine is that you should remove yourself from your keyboard for a little while before you burst a vein.

I love how people think you're angry just because you have a dissenting opinion. And phlapjack brought up the wireless bonuses, not me. The wireless bonus thread is actually sort of enjoyable to read because people are doing it (at least semi-) right. It's shit like this, though, that I'm referring to:

What...the...hell ?!?!? No used cyberware at chargen? I call bullshit.

I try not to be too negative, really. I try to approach this new system with an open mind and a positive attitude. But this kind of stuff...it really, really makes it difficult to stay positive.

so thanks for keeping context in mind when you decide to post a disparaging remark.