 Adepts and Cybereyes, Official opinion |
  |
 Nov 3 2004, 07:24 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Immoral Elf  Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486  |
Except for the fact that it is obviously stated in the first sentence of the Eye Light's description. :)
Nobody is telling you how to run your games. There are, though, people that would like an official ruling on things, one way or the other. They are also free to ignore the ruling or not, but that in no way invalidates the ruling in the first place. As I said, in my games I use some things from canon (whether from books or FAQ), and ignore others. I make up house rules when necessary, but like to have some basis for those rulings in the first place. YMMV |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:30 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
...of which Vision Magification has a similar throw-away line. So, obviously, magicians cannot have Vision Magnification unless it's in a Cybereye, and then only if it's Optical Magnification. Or, if you read it alternatively, it's saying that magicians only need Optical Magnification if it's installed ina Cybereye; otherwise, Electronic Magnification works just spiffy-fine as a retinal modification. Learn the difference between a fluff description and the rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:51 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Obviously I did, since the most official ruling I can find seems to back up the way I read Eye Lights working. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:55 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
So then you are saying the above is true (while simultaneously confusing an email citing a suggested house rule from an official source as an actual official ruling).
Fascinating. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:57 PM
Post
#55
|
|||||||
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
Dr. Funk, where do you see a similar description for Vision Magnification? I see nothing in its description that says that Cybereyes are required in order to have Vision Mag. It appears to me that electronic vision mag and optical vision mag are both available as Retinal Mods. Am I missing something?
In fact, the Mercenary archetype has Electronic Vision Mag as a Retinal Mod.
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
"....(the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes)..."
Right there. It only applies to magicians, but it specifically states "cybereyes" even though it's obviously a throw-away line, just like with the Eye Light Systems. Thus, according to Fortune and ShadowFAQ, that means either 1) magicians must take cybereyes if they want to use Vision Magnification, and then they may only take the Optical Vision Magnification version or 2) magicians without cybereyes can take and use Electronic Vision Magnification with their magic. Note that it doesn't matter if they're an adept either, or someone who doesn't use spells or rely on LOS. Any magician with cybereyes can only take Optical Vision Magnification according to that entry OR cannot take Electronic Vision Magnfiication at all, even as a retinal modifiation. This post has been edited by Doctor Funkenstein: Nov 3 2004, 08:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
My post was solely in response to your last statement ...
What's fascinating is how you are always trying to twist people's words. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:05 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I'm not twisting any words. That statement was in direct relation to what I said before it.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:05 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
"....(the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes)..."
Dr. Funk, I read that to mean that a Magician with Natural Eyes can use Electronic Vision Mag, but if he has Cyber Eyes and Vision Mag, then that Vision Mag has to be optical. Aren't I right on this? I see nothing there that indicates that Cybereyes are required if you want Vision Mag. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:07 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Fascinating is one word for it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:14 PM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Normally you would be. But not according to Fortune and not according to this silly house rule. The fluff description dares to utter the word "cybereyes" in passing, thus it becomes a hardcore rule that cannot be read any other way despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (like the Vision Modifiers Table in M&M for Eye Light Systems). Under the current rules, magicians who cast spells or need LOS at range can only gain that ranged LOS when using Optical Magnification. That's what that bit of fluff text is backing up. Electronic Magnification, whether in a cybereye or a retinal mod, cannot be used to establish LOS. "Cybereye" is being used as a generic term, just like in the description for Eye Light Systems. But according to this silly rule, because the word "cybereye" was muttered as part of a fluff description, it's a hard and fast rule. Now, a magician -- any magician whatsoever, even gun-toting adepts -- must take Optical Magnification if they wish to have any type of Vision Magnification if they have a cybereye. No exceptions allowed. It said "cybereye," dammit! But on the other hand, since it specifically stated "cybereye" that obviously means Electronic Magnification is freely available to magicians -- any magicians whatsoever, even those needing magnification to establish LOS -- as a retinal mod. This post has been edited by Doctor Funkenstein: Nov 3 2004, 08:18 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:18 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
So fine. Ignore the FAQ answer in your games. You've stated you don't like it, you've stated why. So why continue to bash it, call it silly, and insult the guy who answers the SR community's questions?
If you disagree with a FAQ or Errata, that's your right -- it's your game. But you're the one making the house rule. You don't have to be a dick about everything. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:20 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I don't know why I'm bothering to waste my breath on a jackass like yourself, but I was responding to a direct question asked of me by OurTeam on a message board dedicated to the rules of the game about the rules of the game.
So once again: Fuck off. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:26 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
No, you were replying to his question about how you're exagerating the ShadowFAQ's position, reading into it examples that were never stated, and generally making an ass of yourself by going on and on about how "silly" the rule is. By putting words and rules into ShadowFAQ's mouth (and everyone else's who happen to disagree with you), you can trivialize the answer to the actual eye-light/natural eye question, batter it out of all recognizable shape, and make it look stupid. It makes for a valid, but not really legit, argument.
Every time you've posted about this rule, you've blown it more and more out of proportion, used more and more insulting adjectives about it, and generally acted more and more like a troll. You don't like it, we get it. Calm down. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:30 PM
Post
#65
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Don't fucking put words in my mouth! This is what I mean by twisting people's words, a habit you indulge in too frequently. I never stated (as in not once!) that this rule applied to any form of Vision Magnification. My original question was specific to Eye Lights, because I wanted a specific answer (from the closest-to-official source I can find). I don't have a problem with Vision Magnification, and am fully aware of the limitations of each variety, and even agree with how they are adjudicated in canon. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:32 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Okay guys, let's try to tone it down. Name calling gets us nowhere. Funkenstein has made his position clear and so has almost everyone else.
Just for reference though, ShadowFAQ is just doing his job and answering a question to the best of his ability- he's even referenced why he made the call which is more than you can expect from other FAQers-, so give the guy a break. If Funkenstein deems his reply as "silly" that's his opinion and as such is perfectly acceptable, after all it's only a matter of opinion. However, ShadowFAQs reply should by no means be considered a "house rule", it is a ruling put forth by the person officially charged to do so by FanPro - it may even be wrong (we're all human) but it's the opinion of the person charged with giving his opinion on FanPro's behalf. If and when, that "informal" email reply is included in the FAQ, it means it's met with Shadowrun developer's approval and becomes as canon as it gets (and if necessary a clarification will be included in forthcoming reprints) - whether people like the ruling or not, use it or not, it becomes part of the references SR writers have to take into account and is accepted as equally valid as anything printed in any current book (even superceding existing material in case of contradiction). Independently of how you feel about that particular ruling it becomes the "official" reference, and from that point on other contradictory interpretations are simply incorrect "per canon". In this respect there is no significant difference between a FAQ reply and an Errata. There is a line in almost every Shadowrun book that tells you to drop or change anything you don't like or don't want in your game, rules or setting-wise - that is every GM's and player's perrogative. However, make no mistake for the game line developer, the writers and the material they put out from that point on the FAQ answer is just as valid as any printed book and later material will reflect this. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:38 PM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
My point is that you don't (shouldn't) get to choose when you want to take a bit of meaningless fluff as a hardcore rule and when you don't. If you do it in once case, you should be consistant and do it in all cases. You want to claim that because Eye Light Systems mention cybereyes in a generic fashion in passing while ignoring ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, fine. That's your perogative. I don't give a rat's ass what you want to do in your games. But if you ARE going to use that as a hardcore rule while ignoring everything else, and then run off crying to mommy to get them to make it official (while not pointing out any of the other evidence), then you -- or more correctly, they -- need to do it across the board. Picking and choosing when you want is just pathetic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:40 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
Well said Synner.
Also, remember, just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mena it has to be in your game. If a GM really wanted to, a great dragon qwould be made of circus peanuts if they so desired. Me for example, I feel that astral perception should not peirce an active invisibility spell (not the improved invis, just the one that'deletes' the recipient from the viewers active conscious) but should be able to trace and analyze it once it is dropped. I wrote and asked the info peeps ar SR and they said that it does in fact pierce it, I disagree and I disregard when I run a game and that's it. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:41 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Maybe they're taking ShadowFAQ's answer as the canon material in question, and not the teeny tiny little fluff blurb from M&M. Rather than "because Eye Light Systems mention cybereyes in a generic fashion in passing," maybe Fortune's basing his acceptance of the rule on the fact it's what ShadowFAQ said.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 08:57 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
What, exactly, is wrong with choosing to apply a rule such that it makes sense or seems reasonable, and to not apply said rule when it doesnt? What is inherently superior about making clearcut, across-the-board rulings about things that you don't feel are really functionally comparable? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:04 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Let me rephrase then.
Trying to argue that a bit of descriptive text (contextually and functionally) as a hardcore rule is pathetic when you run off and ask an official source for clarification without pointing out all the other material relative to the question. Then, when someone points out that another similar aspect of the game uses the same exact type of descriptive text (contextually and functionally), you try and argue that it's just meaningless fluff 'cause you're cool with it. That's the pathetic part. Picking and choosing what rules you want to use in your own games is fine. When you try and get someone to make it official, then it does, indeed, become official and the logic used there should be used across the board. That's why I have a problem here. I don't care what Fortune wants to do in his game anymore than I care what anyone else wants to do in their game. But when an official source comes out that affects my game (in that I will now have to come up with a house rule) to change something that doesn't need changing whatsoever and sets a baseline for changing multiple other aspects of the game... that's where my problem lies. EDIT: Especially since if ShadowFaqs' comment is correct, he submitted it for inclusion as errata for the next printing of the book. Of course, he probably didn't even know about the Visiblity Modifiers Table because Fortune declined to mention it (since it was direct evidence contrary to his desires), so now the book *will* have *genuine* errata that needs to be corrected. In other words, this ruling from ShadowFaq is creating an error, not fixing one. I don't blame ShadowFaq for not realizing all the problems it causes or not realizing there were other rules contrary to his ruling (ie, the Visibility Modifiers Table). In truth, I like the guy as a person and normally respect what he has to say. My problem is with what he's saying, not who he is. Which is true most of the time when I'm making comments like what I've said in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:05 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Funk: What part of the phrase "My original question was specific to Eye Lights, because I wanted a specific answer from the closest-to-official source I can find" do you not understand?
I did not ask for a general extrapolation valid over the entire rules system. I did not ask anything about Vision Magnification. I did not ask for a clarification to be made on the validity of fluff text. I inquired as to whether or not Eye Lights could be implanted as retinal modifications. That was the entire extent of my question, to which the response was clear. 'Eye Lights, and their various components can only be installed in a Cybereye.' The response also went on to list other examples where 'Fluff' text and 'Game Effects' text might differ, but incidently did not mention Vision Magnification. No ruling was given, nor needed, in the cases of the Eye Laser, Eye Datajack, and Eye Weapons, because the answer is specifically laid out in the 'Game Effects' section. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:10 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
yes, fortune, but the basis of the answer can logically be applied to other areas. the fact that you, specifically, didn't ask about those areas has no bearing on their application. what's good for the goose is good for the gander, even if you don't want a gander.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:16 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Right, but the fact the rule might be applied to things Fortune didn't ask about doesn't make it what Funk is claiming. He's laying blame and specifically accusing Fortune of purposefully manipulating ShadowFAQ into giving the answer he gave, just to ruin Funk's day, while simultaneously condemning ShadowFAQ for falling for the devious ploy and trying to (apparently) belittle him into changing his mind.
Which is absurd, and wholly different from a rational discussion about the repurcussions of this rules call. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:19 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
But there is no discrepancy (except in Funk's mind) with Vision Magnification, or any other cybereye modification. If there is, then a specific question could be asked to clarify that particular problem, without making a blatently stupid blanket extrapolation from one of a few exceptions to the otherwise general rule that the retinal modification option could be taken for all implants.
Seriously, is anyone (obviously other than Funk) confused by the rules for Vision Magnification? Does it need official clarification? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th August 2025 - 04:26 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.