Hey peeps,

Question about which reach value is correct concerning retractable spur cyberware.

In the PDF on page 149 the table lists the spur with +0 reach.

Then later on page 337 the table there lists the spur with +1 reach.

Which one is correct? Has there been any errata on this?

I am inclined to go with +1 reach as a spur sticks your your arm a good 10-20 inches (depending on metatype)

Comments?

In all the precious editions, it was +0.

The same range as a katana or a normal sword? I doubt that.

My reasoning to the two diffrent reaches for spur is the lower one is for the spurs you _strap_ onto your arm, the one with reach is correct for cyber.. but hmm.. dunno, I hope they correct it in the errata threat since I mentioned it there some months ago..

I'd say spurs aren't any longer than a long knife, which would be reach 0.

The exception might be trolls -- I had a player once argue that trolls had forearms as long as katanas, roughly, so the spurs would be too. I had to agree; but that was in SR2, back when trolls had short legs and long arms. Looking at the movement rates in SR4, that no longer appears to be the case (Besides, trolls are melee-monster enough as is.)

i guess, if you are assuming that spurs are somehow based off of the forearm they're in, it might be possible, but really, i dont buy that, atleast, not to the effect of the exterior of the blade being longer, more internal space for holding it, maybe, ut just because you have a longer forearm, doesnt mean the blade is going to be longer, i dont think, therefore, it'd still be +0

I'm with Aku. If we say that forearm blades are longer for trolls then we're going to have to say they're shorter for dwarves.

For reference a spur probably could not be longer than the distance between your wrist and elbow, or about 25-30cm on a Human. If the criteria for +1 reach is an additional meter a spur would fall well short.

what about 2m telescopic obvious cyber spurs ?

Just to play devil's advocate here if you guys agree that 1m is the requirement for +1 reach then how in the world do the Stun Baton and Extendable Baton each have +1 reach?

Both these weapons are not 1 m in length.

My take is they shouldn't. Likely possible explanation would be rounding to the nearest whole meter in the design phase of the game. Suppose the Stun Baton was not a full meter long, but was 51 cm (reference 20 in = about 51cm) and because of this in a calculation somewhere it was allowed the +1 reach while the 25-30cm blade of a retractacble spur still rounded to zero. However I believe the Extendable Baton says it extends to 18 inches (around 46cm) so this doesn't quite work there.

As for the idea of a telescoping spur, would you really want to fight with a hollow bladed sword?

Personally, I would go with the +0 and write off hte +1 as a typo. In all other edition, it was +0. Considering that the spurs can't be any longer than the major bones of the forearm, the only way to warrant a +1 reach would be to implant them into a Troll. Otherwise, survival knives would also get the +1 Reach bonus.

Great... a collapsible Mace of Sharpness....

The interior of the hollowed telescoping blades could contain a honeycomb-like mesh of smart materials. When current is applied to the mesh, it can become rigid; when the current is off, key links in each hex cell could become flexible and allow the assembly to collapse upon itself.

You could also inject a pressurized liquid of some kind into the hollow spaces, letting hydraulics give you the interior structural integrity needed.

This pseudoscience speculation was brought to you by Ares Macrotechnology: Better living through superior firepower.

Wouldn't that require you to keep a charge of that liquid in the handle, though? And a gas charge (or a physical ram of some sort) to keep it in the blade when it was deployed? You might be able to use a solenoid in the grip for the ram, with a physical lock once it's fully extened so that you aren't draining battery power while. If it were electronically activated, it'd make deployment quite simple, though.

I'm uncertain, but I believe that the spurs were +1 reach for most of playtesting. I viewed this as meaning that reach no longer really corresponds to physical weapon length, only that there is some degree of extension, even minor, to one's standard melee reach (i.e. of just the limbs themselves). However, long knives not having this benefit draws that observation into question. I would probably say that a spur should be compared to a knife before a sword in terms of length-benefits, and reach assigned accordingly. If a spur has +1 reach, a full-on katana or similar weapon would probably be entitled to +2 reach or more.

I've never been entirely pleased with how reach worked, insofar as that there is a notable reach benefit to something as short as a tanto or k-bar (both techncially combat knives), while a tactical folder (also a combat knife, hence the tactical nomenclature, arguably more dangerous in close quarters) does provide a decent edge against an unarmed opponent despite providing scant few inches of blade extension beyond the grip. A potential solution might be to provide a bonus die to anyone using a melee weapon, versus someone who is unarmed, unless that person is somehow explicitly trained in counter-weapon techniques.

Telescoping sword: you could use an cylinder with a cutting edge (or more slashing edge, as it would be segmented). Usage for piercing attacks would be possible if the lower part of each cylinder is able to expand once it leaves its outer cylinder. Beware, soft targets only!

Collapsing the telescoping sword could be done by creating subpressure inside the cylinder.

According to the german errata spurs have a reach of 0.

I liked the idea that spurs had a reach value. Reason being, it bothers me that a character can get bone lacing or Bone density and have the same attack value plus the damage resistance...Seems to me, there should be some bonus over that....

Bone augs allow you to have the same damage on every part of your body, not just when using spurs.

They also give you an awesome degree of defense, and it's almost as if the damaging ability is just tacked on.

I guess my real issue with them (and I had the same issue with Bone lacing in SR3) is that I like to play characters with bone lacing, and I think spurs are cool. Just bums me out that it would be wasteful in money and essence to get them...

I was hoping in this edition they would make a difference of some sort game mechanics wise between the two, so it would still be worthile....

Look at the cost. From a balance standpoint, the vast majority of the cost in both essence and nuyen is the defense. The damage is tacked on as a bonus. How would your character deal with needing bone lacing but wanting spurs? Would he get them anyway or would he do without since they're redundant? It may not be the most optimal choice to get both, but if it makes you happy, go for it.

Spurs do have the advantage being bladed weapons. You can cut someone's throat with a spur. It's hard to threaten a hostage with extra strong bones. You have to draw back to strike him, leaving a bigger window to take you down. You also can't cut ropes/wires/datalines with your unbreakable skeleton. Sure, you can carry a knife, but you can't lose your spurs, or forget to take them along. Spurs are just more threatening than "Out of my way! I have strong bones and a hatred of metal detectors!"

I generally assume spurs are ceramic to avoid the unpleasantness of slicing into a power line with something attatched to your arm.