 Adepts and Cybereyes, Official opinion |
  |
 Nov 3 2004, 09:20 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Immortal Elf  Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890  |
The shoe fits snuggly. Especially since Fortune has tried to do this exact same thing in the past when people disagreed with him about the rules.
The only errata for Eye Light Systems is that "cybereye" needs to be changed to "eye." Doing so makes it consistant with its own Game Effects, the Visibility Modifiers Table, and everything else in the game. |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:28 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
And even that doesn't *need* to happen, since the fact that the eyelight is a cybereye modification does not necessarily perclude it from being a retinal modification as well. All they're saying in that one half-line of flavor text is that the eyelight is a cybereye modification. Nowhere does it actually say that it cannot be taken as a retinal mod, which is the necessary condition for it to *not* be available as a retinal mod (see P. 44 M&M for details).
That said, I'm abandoning this topic. Despite being right Doc has once again managed to alienate even those who agree with him, not through any faults in his logic, but the flaws in his character. Learn to chill, buddy. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:29 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
honestly? yes, some kind of sense for vision magnification would be nice. specifically, the part where cybereyes work with magic because they're paid for with essence, but that magically (heh) doesn't apply to vision mag. that's an argument for another thread, though.
edit: eyeless, that's the whole point of this thread. according to the official FAQ, which is at least half canon, eyelights (and certain other mods) cannot be taken with biological eyes. they can only be installed in cybereyes. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:31 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
Only thing I'm confused on is why Vision mag and Smartlink had to be rendered incompatible for reasons other than it made the combo so deadly it was redicoulous. keep in mind it only becomes that way when you neglect the other potential modifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:33 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Eh, Vision Magnification 3 with a Smartlink only provides a -1 TN bonus over Vision Magnification with a Laser Sight. As well it should be since, yanno, Smartlinks are supposed to be smart Laser Sights without the Laser.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:33 PM
Post
#81
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
If you say so. :)
In your opinion. Obviously others disagree with you. That is what pisses you off. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:35 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
No, blatant ignorance by sycophants who have to cry to mommy because they can't come up with a decent argument on their own, and holier-than-thou people who spend half their time whining in threads about how the topic is stupid, is what pisses me off. Solid and intelligent arguments, like what indivuduals such as OurTeam and mfb often provide, do not.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:37 PM
Post
#83
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Man, you're fun to talk games with. Are you always like this? I bet you're a blast to hang out with IRL. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:40 PM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
it's worth noting that this isn't--yet--an official ruling. the author of the reply doesn't know if it will be accepted into the FAQ, or into future errata. and, incidentally, if a player had tried to foist the "it's in the fluff" argument on me, i wouldn't have accepted it. the argument is very, very weak. if it gets FAQ'd/errata'd, okay, but the argument doesn't stand on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:44 PM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Which is why the topic's subtitle is 'Official opinion'. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:47 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Nice edit. Note that my original question included no arguments either for or against the ruling. No reference to the 'fluff' was ever made. I asked a straight question containing no bias one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:51 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
yeah, i try do the same thing when i send in questions. or, rather, i present both sides as evenly as possible. that was more a gripe against the original authors and their editors than anything; if it was intended that eyelights only be installed in cybereyes, i can't think of a less clear wording to convey that than what's in M&M.
well, i take that back. "eyelights can be installed in biological eyes" would have been a much less clear way to state that they can only be installed in cybereyes. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:51 PM
Post
#88
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
That because electronic vision magnification isn't actual magnification. It just makes the object appear to be closer by making the image larger. This also has the consequence of slightly decreasing the actual resolution of the image. So, your not looking at an image filtered through your cybereyes, your looking at an image digitaly altered by specialized processors in your cybereyes |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:53 PM
Post
#89
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
as opposed to actually bringing the objects closer, or what? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:54 PM
Post
#90
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
It's the difference between the zoom option in MS Paint and a telescope. It's not hard to grasp. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:55 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
or a new digital camera with 20x zoom (optical) and 400x zoom (electronic)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:56 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Although mfb knows full well why, Electronic Magnification is invalid because it digitally recreates the image; you're no longer looking at the object, but a digital representation thereof. Optical Magnification modifies the way the light is reflecting in your eye, refocusing it to make it larger. You're still "seeing" the "real" object.
LOS for magic requires that you "see" the "real" object, which is why Optical Magnification is needed to establish LOS. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:58 PM
Post
#93
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's silly, though. for one, digital optics are, or should be, way beyond the resolution of the human eye. for another, if the resolution is that low, why doesn't it affect other ranged attacks?
and, yeah, i know about the electronic-recreation argument. i just don't like it, in light of the "paid for essence" thing. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 09:59 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
No arguments from me on that. I was simply discussing the logic the game attempts to use between the two.
The thing that's really weird is that Vision Magnification plays no part in spellcasting. VM reduces range categories -- and spells don't have ranges other than just "LOS." Well, that and "Touch" and whatnot. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 10:01 PM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
But it's a significantly better combination (nonobvious, has the various secondary benefits of a smartlink, can be taken entirely with cyberware leaving no external signs, and moves base TN to 2 from 3 regardless of range, lower when combined with a rangefinder!) regardless of the apparently small TN modifier. And Critias, having fun baiting Doc? Several people have valid complaints with him on this thread, but you aren't one of them. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 10:05 PM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Again, no argument from me. But it just seems silly that Vision Magnification can magnify where a "dumb" laser dot is, but having the Smartlink Processer compensate for the change in Magnification is nigh impossible per the rules (and since they both have eye/cybereye components, they're automatically routed together if memory serves).
The difference with VM and a Laser Sight vs. VM and a Smartlink at Extreme Range is the same as it would be at point-blank range. Doesn't make a lot of sense that a Laser Sight's effectiveness jumps dramatically at Extreme Ranges, especially considering what little I know about firearms. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 10:07 PM
Post
#97
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
My bad. Seeing as how my first post to him is a suggestion he calm down and stop insulting people (because his point has been made), and his reply was just calling me a jackass and a command I "fuck off," I thought I was allowed to dislike him. Especially since, after that, I explained a little more fully what I meant when I said maybe he should calm down (and changed my tone when I did it), and got a little more name calling later... Sorry, Kag, I guess I'm still just a little fuzzy on who the TSS applies to, and when. It seemed to me like he was pretty out of line, and no one was saying anything to him about it, so I thought it was kosher for me to reply with the same sardonic smugness and self-congratulatory tone, with less cussing. My mistake. Thanks for yelling at me about it, though, not him. It clears things up a whole lot. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 10:09 PM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Smarlink+Rangefinder at Extreme range provides -2, for a base TN (when combined with vismag) of 0.
My personal answer would be to kill the magnification/laser sight combo. And Critias, if there's a TOS violation, report him. Don't flame back. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 10:15 PM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Actually a Smartlink-2 with Rangefinder and Vision Mag 3 at Extreme Range is (5-3) 2. If memory serves, range modifiers are: SM is 2/3/4(6)/7. SM+RF is 2/3/3(5)/5. LS+VS is 3/3/3/3. EDIT: D'oh, nevermind, even though I said it just a few minutes ago I forgot that VM reduces ranges, not providing a -1 bonus per range. Duh.
Anyway, I think the assumption is that if you have the two working together, Rangefinders are a thing of the past (and instead assumed to already be included in the Smartlink's bonus). Thus a Smartlink with Vision Magnification 3 would be 2 across the board, where a Laser Sight with VM3 would be 3 across the board. Rangefinders would be non-existant, or available for use with other devices instead of a Smartlink (with different rules). |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th September 2025 - 06:17 AM |
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.