Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Astral Projection
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
John Campbell
QUOTE (Polaris)
Actually my game that I play in goes exactly according to the rules in this.

Zazen already covered that gem pretty well.

QUOTE
You are wrong about DnD and you are wrong in general about elemental manips.

On page 177 of the 3.5 PHB it says:

QUOTE

Unless the descriptive text of the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature as assumed to survive a magical attack.  If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects).


There it is in black and white. I was right about DnD.


On page 87 of the Player's Handbook (AD&D 2nd Edition, 1st printing), it says:
QUOTE

A being's carried equipment and possessions are assumed to make their saving throws against special attacks if the creature makes its saving throw, unless the spell specifically states otherwise. If the creature fails its saving throw, or if the attack form is particularly potent, the possessions may require saving throws using either item saving throws (see the DMG) or the being's saving throw. The DM will inform you when this happens.


That's from the most recent D&D ruleset that I've played with, the ruleset that I played with for the longest (a decade or so), the ruleset that applied to the anecdote I related above, the ruleset that I will use if I ever play D&D again, and the ruleset that at least one of the other people in the discussion explicitly said that they were referring to. I've never played 3rd edition (I haven't played D&D at all since before 3rd edition came out, come to think of it), and have no real desire to... I've been extremely unimpressed with what they did to the game, and the rule you quoted above only reinforced that.

And it's almost totally irrelevant, anyway, because Shadowrun is not D&D (thank the gods). Insofar as there's any relevance at all - via your ludicrous assertion that a generalized damage system requires that equipment be invulnerable - the fact that there exists any edition of D&D at all that allows for equipment damage proves you to be wrong. For that matter, even the rule that you quoted yourself, asserting that it makes you "right", proves your underlying point to be wrong, because even a 1 in 20 chance of equipment damage is still a chance for equipment damage.

QUOTE
Furthermore I am right about fetishes too.  In the BBB page 180 it says:

QUOTE

For examples of items used as fetishes, see Foci page 189



Note that this does not say "any item that can be used as a focus can be used as a fetish". Note that the list of examples on p.189, the one with which the word "fetishes" is associated, is all fairly standard stuff like wands and amulets and shamanic objects, with not a mention of highly technological items (well, I suppose you could make a case for "chemical mixtures").

QUOTE
When we go to page 189 it says:

QUOTE

Although talismongers tend to offer fairly traditional foci, any physical object can be enchanted as a focus.


That means that fetishes (and foci) can have ORs of 10.


Foci can, in fact, have ORs of 10 or higher, but objects with high ORs are much more difficult to enchant. I already went over this. Did you even read my post?

That doesn't necessarily say anything about fetishes, though. Fetishes are not foci, despite your attempt to conflate the two.

I will admit, however, that IcyCool is correct that "made using" is not necessarily the same thing as "made of". If you subscribe to his interpretation, fetishes with high ORs are simply unusual and unlikely (just like I originally said), not impossible.

Actually, even under my strict interpretation, it's not impossible to get fetishes with high ORs... you simply have to alchemically refine, for example, the raw silicon and copper or whatever they make chips out of in the 2060s, take it to a fab, have it made into a CPU, and put it in a deck, and you'll have your 10 OR fetish. It'll be expensive and unusual, and therefore something you're not likely to see...

Though, really, it's all beside the point, because if a player in a game I was GMing told me, "My fetishes are little ceramic balls that I keep inside my hidden tooth compartments so they'll be invulnerable," I'd say, "Uh... no. Stop being an idiot," and that would be all the rules necessary.

QUOTE
OH....but it gets worse.


Your logic? Yeah.

QUOTE
I now direct you to page 189 where it specifically states that Acid eats away at metallic and organic material.  It also states further down that those things hit with acid can be so melted...


Actually, what it says is that anything hit with acid can be so melted, with no qualifications whatsoever on the material or anything of that nature. The earlier statement that organic and metallic materials can be affected does not contradict this, because it does not say that other materials aren't affected. If you really want to take a strict fundamentalist reading of the rules, without applying anything resembling common sense to it, then that phrase means that your assertion that ceramics are immune to acid is invalid. According to the rules, nothing is immune to acid.

And I think you mean p.196.

QUOTE
yet if a focus is worn under the armor, it won't be hit by the acid now will it?


I've never argued that fetishes worn under armor wouldn't gain the benefits of the armor. However, I categorically reject your assertion that simply being under armor renders them invulnerable. Most armor does a fairly poor job of protecting against elemental effects (only half Impact applies), unless it's been specifically hardened against the element in question. The always-popular armor jacket + FFFBA combo provides only one point of armor protection against elemental attacks (and I'd be dubious about allowing anything bulkier or less conformant than one's undies to be worn under form-fitting anyway... not that it really matters, because the form-fitting's meager Impact rating disappears into the rounding error). The poor armor protection represents leakage of the effect around or through the armor, so, yes, a focus or fetish worn under the armor can be hit by acid or other effects.

QUOTE
Likewise on page 190, we find that fire can only affect flammable materials while lightning only affects flammable and/or conductive materials.


Nowhere in the rules does it say that those spells only affect anything. The spell descriptions say that the spells create corrosive materials, flames, electricity, and so on, and provide examples of things that are affected by these, things that are especially vulnerable to them, and, in a couple cases, things that will help protect against them, but nowhere does it say that the examples provided are the only things affected by them, or imply that the flames, electricity, acids, etc. created will not have their normal effects on anything they hit.

Also, it's p.197.

QUOTE
Thus if a fetish is not flammable OR organic OR conductive/electronic OR metallic then it can not be affected by any elemental manip.


I've already debunked the argument that this assertion is based on, but I'll add that you're still ignoring all of the additional elemental effects presented in MitS.

QUOTE
Science has no bearing on this since this is magic.


Magic allows circumventing certain physical laws under certain limited circumstances. It is not an invitation to totally take leave of one's senses.

QUOTE
[BTW, hydrofluoric acid is unque in it's ability to etch glass.  Even 18 molar nitric acid and sodium amide (one of the strongest known bases) are stored in glass.


Would you like to point out the rule that says that the corrosive material produced by elemental acid effects cannot be hydrofluoric acid?

QUOTE
Likewise, while electricty can shatter ceramic, it can only do so if a high amperage current is forced through it to ground.  This will never be the case with fetishes worn in the inside of armor.


Again, while fetishes inside armor will gain the protection of the armor (half Impact, just like the occupant), that does not confer total invulnerability. And realistically, do you think that a lightning bolt with enough megavolts behind it to punch many amps across multiple meters of air gap is really going to be completely stopped by a centimeter of kevlar?

It's similar to lightning strikes on cars... contrary to popular belief, it's not the rubber tires that save your ass. A lightning bolt has enough potential to arc across many meters of open air (I don't recall offhand what the breakdown voltage of air is, but it's in the tens of kilovolts per inch range), and isn't going to be stopped by those last few inches of rubber. It's the metal frame of the car that protects you, by providing a current path for the lightning that's much more attractive than your body.

So, you going to start putting little Faraday cages around your highly processed ceramic fetishes to protect them from lightning strikes?

QUOTE
Moral:  don't argue about electrical effects with a physicist.]


Ooooo, argument from authority. You like racking up those logical fallacies, don't you? (Hmm. That one's not in BitBasher's link. Try here.) And that's an especially ironic choice of "authority", seeing as how you just made the assertion that science is irrelevant here.

(And I'll see your "physicist" and raise you an EE.)
Polaris
John,

You are simply wrong. If you read the spells, they say that acid only affects organic or metalic substances. It says so in the first two sentences of the description. Your quotes cover those items that can be affected by acid.

The same applies to fire, electricity and all the rest.

As for the car, I am well aware of faraday cages thank you very much. However let's talk about lightning strikes:

Electricity follows the path to the lowest potential along the path of least resistance. That means that if you look at a person hit by a bolt of electricty, you will find burn/impact damage at the place where the bolt entered and left and some along the path. This is why boots are often blown off feet during electrical strikes. Well, because the fetish is an insulator not on the path to ground and isolated in a high potential, it will not be damaged.

As for acid, it is highly unlikely that the acid is hydrofluric acid because HF is a lousy acid *except* for etching silicates.

In fact, magic voids what regard as physical law regardless, so we go with the spell description and *only* with the spell description. Otherwise I would argue that an acid ball would do no immediate damage to any human target (as anyone that has been splashed by 18 Molar acid can tell you). OTOH, if you don't neutralize it immediately you will wind up with a severe chemical burn but that takes time....often as much as a minute for you to even notice the effect! [This is why you have to be so careful around highly corrosive acid.]

That is not how the acid bolt spell works, so we know right away that we can ditch any pretense of chemistry.

Look guys, Read the rules. Some of you are just trying to screw with foci for the sake of screwing with foci and I find that attitude rather despicable frankly. It was already admitted that such things are rare......and if you read the *rules* and what they *say* and not what you want them to say, you will find I am right.

Go on....I dare the lot of you.

-Polaris
Polaris
Guys,

Read these and weep:

Page 196 bottom of the page, first sentence under Acid Stream:

QUOTE

These spells create a powerful corrosive that sprays the target causing terrible burns and eating away organic and metallic material.


Note the qualifiers in that first sentence. It is a straight line deduction then that if the material in question were neither metallic or organic, then it would not be affected.

I will continue on page 197 under Flamethrower:

QUOTE

These spells create flames that the caster can direct.  The flames flash into existence and burn out after striking the target, but can ignite flammable (emphasis mine) materials, which will continue to burn after the flame is exhausted.


Again by a straight line, plain language deduction, we conclude that if an object is not flammable, then it can not be harmed by this spell.

I continue on page 197 under Lightning Bolt:

QUOTE

These spells create and direct electricity.  Lightning can short out or overload electronics (with -1 to the equipment's resistance) and may ignite flammable (emphsis mine) materials (like the fire spells above).


Once more it is a straight line deduction to see that if an object is not an electronic one (and I will be generous and apply this to all conductors) or flammable, then it simply can not be affected by this spell.

See how easy that was?

-Polaris
John Campbell
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Siege
Hat's off to all involved in this thread. I'm in awe.

-Siege
Polaris
John,

My reading comprehension is just fine, but yours could use a little work. Try to break out the groupthink will ya?

-Polaris
BitBasher
QUOTE
Again by a straight line, plain language deduction, we conclude that if an object is not flammable, then it can not be harmed by this spell.
You were okay up until this quote regarding fire and lightning spells. It says that the fireball cannot ignite those materials, it says nothing about them being damaged or destroyed. For example any plastic items may not be ignited but they will be melted into slag. Now use your imagination regarding how immense heat affects other things. good.

[edit]And Polaris, after trying to confice us that the letter of the rules allowed you to called a shot to ignore a full body armor spell, you lost the right IMHO to make pleas for logic to be applied to rules. You also lost any right to request that we stop trying to exploit things down to the exact letter instead of the intent of a rule, as you have done many, many times.[/edit]
TinkerGnome
QUOTE (BitBasher @ Oct 18 2003, 12:46 PM)
And Polaris, after trying to confice us that the letter of the rules allowed you to called a shot to ignore a full body armor spell

As much as I disgree with Polaris on many things, he's right about that. The letter of the FAQ ruling specificly allows for the ignoring of all armor bonuses when figuring the power of an attack. Changing that is, by its very nature, a house rule.

It's also a house rule I'll be using, and most everyone else will, as well, but saying it's the way the ruling works is not exactly accurate. The FAQ needs to be changed, in my opinion, to make it more realistic.

[edit]Of course, this was the heated subject of a long closed (and deleted) debate so let's not get back into it wink.gif [/edit]
John Campbell
QUOTE (Polaris)
My reading comprehension is just fine,

Obviously not, because you keep asserting that the rules say things that they do not actually say. I've already pointed out why and how, but you've failed to address that, choosing instead to simply repeat your assertions. I could've responded by just copying and pasting the relevant bits from my previous post, I suppose, but that seems rather unproductive. If you're going to continue to say silly things, could you please at least make them new silly things so that I can entertain myself debunking them?

QUOTE
but yours could use a little work.

Umm... "I know you are but what am I?"

QUOTE
Try to break out the groupthink will ya?

You know, sometimes, when everybody but you thinks that you're wrong, it's not because you're a brilliantly innovative iconoclast. It's just because you came up with a stupid, wrong idea. Yes, they laughed at Galileo... but they laugh at the flat-earthers and the tin-foil hat brigade, too.
Polaris
John,

Even Bitbasher and TinkerGnome have admitted that I was not (at least) completely wrong, so your assertion is false (and neither are fans of mine).

The point is that these forums suffer from groupthink. I happen to be right on this issue and that really is the end of it [and I have been right before when the entire forum it seemed thought I was wrong.....refering to armor layering].

-Polaris
John Campbell
Hmm. So you're asserting that the rest of the group disagrees with me, and then accusing me of groupthink?

Do you see the problem with this logic?
BitBasher
Christ, I concede Polaris was right on one minor point, while boning up everythign else and he practically claims himself a winner... you were still wrong about 99% of the time polaris counting all the points you stopped bringing up beacuse you had no remaining valid argument.
Polaris
Bitbasher,

Actually if you read the letter of the rules I am right at least 9 times out of ten. Go count it yourself. I suggest you read what I write carefully and not claim I said somthing that I did not. That is rude.

John,

You might want to read what I said again....as well as what you said. You claimed that the entire board disagreed with me. I showed that that was not completely true (and that was all I had to show).

Furthermore, this board does suffer from groupthink. The two positions are adjoint not contradictory.

-Polaris
Sphynx
Polaris, it has nothing to do with Group Think. I agree Group Think exists here, but I've also proven that you can change the Group Think by showing the evidence, such as the old 'Astral Beacon' theory.

You said that Fetishes are invulnerable to damage because we have an abstract armour system. No matter how much you point out what elements won't effect ceramic, you are still wrong on that matter. I would check anytime you took a Serious+ wound to see if a random piece of gear was hit in the process, and if I randomly pick the Fetish, and that fetish could be effected by the element/object, bye bye fetish. If I hit a solid piece of gear like a gun, bye bye gun (not destroyed, but broken) and convert the damage to stun (since a nice solid object took the brunt of the damage). No Canon source, just sensible behaviour for a GM.

It's not a Group Think that certain gear is isn't invulnerable, it's logical thinking. Blast and Metal Elemental Effects, as will bullets and blades, will happily break ceramic under anything except maybe hardened armour just from the impact.

No matter that you are right about Acid and Fire Elemental Effects not effecting your ceramic fetishes (I'd think that'd be just as logically obvious and can't believe people are questioning it), doesn't mean you are right on the subject matter, the invulnerability of Fetishes.

John, a ceramic anything won't be effected by a flame, acid, electrical or any other such spell. Look at the duration of the spell. Instantaneous. To damage ceramic with even a powerful one of these elements (force 10 + deadly maybe) you'd still need to have it sustained for a bit. Now yes, I've read the rules and saw how even guns can be "corroded into junk" but I don't think they'd be turned to sludge or anything, just that the pins and other important factors could (I'd require at LEAST Force 6 to do it) be damaged enough to make a gun into 'junk' or 'useless'. Acid, just like Fire and Elec, doesn't stick around after the 'instantaneous' has passed by. In that split second, it did damage and is gone, any residual effect being something seperated from the spell (like clothing caught on fire from a flame spell).

Anyhows, this is my first and last post on the subject. You guys can go back to your banterings trying to convince each other of the small details that don't even matter for the big picture. Truth be told, Polaris is quite right in that Fetishes are not limiting for a person. Not because of invulnerabilities (after all, if you pick a random piece of gear to damage, the chance it's the fetish is equal to the chance its your primary firearm). If you are naked and lost you're screwed anyhows. Etc Etc. Fetishes are hardly limiting, no more so than any other important piece of equipment.

I do think that you're better off not using Fetishes, since 100% is better than 99%, but it's not going to hinder you to limit your spells with Fetishes. If your players are scared to do it, it's because you, as a GM, exploit them giving them a GM vs the Players feeling, and that's just bad GMing.

Sphynx
Siege
I don't call it bad GMing so much as a realistic understanding of the "oh sh!t" factor of not being able to work your spells if you lose your gear. And voluntarily crippling otherwise powerful magical ability by accepting silly limitations such as expendable fetishes. Or even reusable fetishes.

It's not unlike the skillwire monkey losing his chips.

Or even a gun bunny being seperated from his weapons.

It's not like the GM keeps "stealing" or actively depriving players of gear with contrived or cliched scenarios, but taking an "area of effect" hit and getting your gear fragged, torched or otherwise singed is a legitimate result.

-Siege
Sphynx
Not what I said Siege. I said that anyone giving them a "GM vs Players" feeling is giving them bad GMing. Taking out an item for story is good for the story, but selectively taking out an item purely because you, the GM, don't like something about the character, is poor GMing. As for a silly limitation, some people actually prefer to take fetishes for more than the spell points. But assuming they did do it for the single spell point they saved, that's still less in value than a single flaw point.

Sphynx
Wonazer
Polaris, John, Bit, and whomever else: Leave my nice thread in peace, please. If you all would like, I can start up a new fresh thread just for you all to argue in. Either way, move on. Arguing over the rules is one thing, but tossing insults is just too much.
Zazen
QUOTE (Polaris)
The point is that these forums suffer from groupthink.

The frequent unanimous opposition to your weird ideas about the game just means that you have weird ideas about the game. I also think that asserting yourself to be better than the forum membership as a whole says quite a bit about you.

QUOTE
I happen to be right on this issue and that really is the end of it


You're not for the reason I mentioned earlier, which you declined to reply to.
Polaris
Zazen,

I have been consistantly right w/r/t to the written rules of the game. My ideas aren't wierd, rather a large segment of the posters here ignore wonky rules and have (apparently) for years....without realizing it.

Furthermore, a lot of posters here seem to be stuck even now in SR2 mode. A classic example of groupthink was the Astral Beacon theory that Sphynx alluded to. Another classic example was the arguments over armor layering. Yet another was the persistant and wrong idea that you can ground spells through an active sustained focus from Astral Space into physical space.

In the prior thread regarding foci, you wouldn't believe how long that wrong idea persisted even in the face of quotes from SR3 to the contrary.

So, yes this forum suffers badly from groupthink. I am an arrogant SOB and I will be the first to admit it.

I am also generally right, and it might be nice to have that aknowledged as well.

-Polaris

P.S. Sphynx, there are no elemental manips that have impact or blades effect either in BBB or in MOTS. That means that ceramic foci are pretty much immune from all the standard elemental manips.

P.P.S. This is to Sphynx too. Your rules regarding breakage of items is a house rule. I am not saying it is a bad houserule, but it is a houserule. By canon, your items are sacrosant unless specifically targeted (with the appropriate TN penalties if possible at all) or unless the effect specifically says otherwise (which admittedly elemental manips do).
Sphynx
I was the first to say it was a House Rule there Pol. wink.gif

Regardless, it's 50% of any ruling a GM does is House Ruling, including anything that falls under 'descriptive'. If I state that a shot penetrated your jacket and slams into your rib strong enough to give you a light wound and a huge bruise on your mid-abdomen, that's a House Rule. If I say that the medium damage slams into your chest with a strong impact and the sound of glass shattering is heard as sharp objects sting your chest, that's a House Rule. nyahnyah.gif

Some things shouldn't be called House Rules though, and should instead be called creative storytelling rules. Just because there's no rules in armours taking holes from bullets and objects under them breaking in the process because they're made of ceramic or glass, doesn't mean it should never happen, which is what "invulnerable" implies.

The idea of an abstract armour system is to give the GM more room for creative combat scenarios, not to prevent it entirely. It gives me the option of putting that Deadly damage on your Achilles or through your eyeball, my choice, dependant on what makes my story better. But the abstract armour idea was NOT intended for the purpose of providing equipment an invulnerability.

Sphynx
Polaris
Sphynx,

You and I both know, however, that an abstract hit-location and armor system does in fact de facto do just what I said....it gives item immunity. This is not limited to SR either, but is true in pretty much all RPGs with such systems.

Going strictly by canon, unless the item is specifically targeted or an effect specifically says otherwise, your gear is sacrosant.

Really, why is this disputed? Now if in your games you want to modify that, then fine. You may be suprised, but if we gamed together, I doubt we would have very many problems at all in that regard (just as long as I knew the house rules up front which I think is fair). I would even say that item damage as a houserule is even reasonable....but it ain't canonical.

-Polaris
Sphynx
That's the mistake boss. No, it isn't a tool for the player, an abstract armour system is a tool for the GM. It gives them control of the story, and if they choose to have an attack damage a piece of equipment on you, they don't have to wait until the hit-location chart says they hit you in that area (roll for random object in location) and hope it's the item they want to hit.

Now, the problem isn't the rules, it's the abuse by the GM. As I stated before, selectively picking out items to destroy for the sake of "teaching a player a lesson against twinkdom" is BAD GMing. As a matter of fact, it causes twinkdom because now a player has an urge to start finding loopholes in the rules to keep his equipment safe.

Personally, as a GM I would never target an inventory item of a player, though every once in awhile I do perform my own little test to see how much damage armour has taken. Only exception would be if you're taking along some huge cyberdeck looking object into a firefight, or trying to use an object as a shield.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the abstract armour system is a tool for the GM to use, should he so opt to do. It is definitely NOT a shield of invulnerability for a character's inventory to hide behind. I find it as difficult to believe that's being argued as you seem to find it that my case is being argued.... I mean think about it: "My inventory is invulnerable to damage because I wear armour". What GM wouldn't start proving you wrong if you told him that? nyahnyah.gif

Sphynx
Sphynx
sorry to double post like this Pol, but I went through the whole thread and the book and can't find your quotes that make objects invulnerable in either the thread nor book, just some D&D quotes which I'm sure are not the Canon source you refer to. Could you point me to the Canon source that says objects are invulnerable please?

Sphynx
Polaris
Sphynx,

I said your equipment was sacrosant de facto and not de jure. I picked my words carefully. There is absolutely no canon rules support that says that your items get damaged in regular combat. None. Nada. Zip.

Ergo, I draw the very logical and reasonable conclusion that in standard combat they are not. That is especially true since mechanics exist in the game to damage gear should the GM choose to use them.

I grant that realistically gear should be damaged in combat, but in virtually any RPG (and this I know to be true), that doesn't happen largely because such a thing slows game play far too much and is subject to far too much GM abuse.

Thus unless you can find canonical rules in the books that state otherwise, I stand firmly (and I feel correctly) on the position that standard combat damage does not damage your gear.

-Polaris
Sphynx
Drawing a logical and reasonable conclusion, as you have stated you have done, is, by definition a House Interpretation and not Canon at all.

So, no matter how non-canonical everyone else's rules are on the matter, yours are just as non-canonical.

A lack of rules to support the opposing viewpoint is not proof that one's own viewpoint is the ruling. I'm not only willing, but already have admitted on various occasions that a damaging of items is House Ruling. But choosing to not damage items is also House Ruling, not Canon. Don't try to tell me that items are invulnerable because of a lack of rules. Of course they're not.

Sphynx
Polaris
Sphynx,

You know better than that. If the rules don't allow for a particular sort of attack and/or result, then in an RPG the baseline assumption is you can not do it.

That is particularly true when a mechanic does exist that allows you to target items.

I think fundamentally we may have to agree to disagree, but once more I feel I am on firm ground.

My conclusion is fairly simple I think:

Since it requires houserules to damage gear in normal combat, the default (canonical) assumption is that items can not be damaged in normal combat.

I don't understand how you could come to a different conclusion. To me at least the logic is obvious.

-Polaris
BitBasher
I think that last two sentences there pretty much sums up most recent arguments we have with you Polaris. biggrin.gif
Sphynx
Exactly. nyahnyah.gif
Herald of Verjigorm
If "no damage to gear" is a house rule and "chance of damage to gear" is a house rule, then the official ruling must be along the lines of: "make a house rule" or "when it fits the plot"

There is no official ruling on how much a tin of Tasty Pop™ costs, so does that mean they are inherently free? If you said yes, I want to hit you with a large blunt object, and you made a house ruling. If you said no, then you have made a house ruling and maintained some semblance of common sense.

If you want a game that has every eventuality already defined, go somewhere else.
IcyCool
Polaris, did you get a chance to check out a copy of MitS? Those rules supercede the rules in the SR3 main book.

On the subject of "lack of rules = proof". Riddle me this, rulesman (wink.gif). There exists canon ruling on firing at a vehicle, correct? This would also include such things as firing a grenade launcher, or tossing a grenade at said vehicle, correct? Now, there also exist rules for firing or throwing a grenade at a person. Let's take the following example:

Gary Ganger is showing off his new Yamaha Rapier to his pals. One of them decides to chuck a grenade at Gary's bike (with Gary still on it). Does Gary get hit by the blast, since his bike was targeted by the grenade? How about if Gary is two feet away from his bike, and the grenade lands between them? According to your interpretation of the rules, only one OR the other would get hit by the blast, correct? If not, what's the difference between this, and having the grenade blast damage the shiny predator(as there are rules for attacking objects) in Gary's hand?
Zazen
QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 20 2003, 11:39 AM)
Since it requires houserules to damage gear in normal combat, the default (canonical) assumption is that items can not be damaged in normal combat.

Since it requires house rules to maintain a tank of tropical fish, the default (canonical) assumption is that tanks of tropical fish cannot be maintained.


All I can do is repeat this concept in the hopes that you'll make this small logical step. The "groupthink" that infects us seems to be simple reason.
TinkerGnome
QUOTE (Zazen @ Oct 20 2003, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 20 2003, 11:39 AM)
Since it requires houserules to damage gear in normal combat, the default (canonical) assumption is that items can not be damaged in normal combat.

Since it requires house rules to maintain a tank of tropical fish, the default (canonical) assumption is that tanks of tropical fish cannot be maintained.

That's funny on so many levels. The thing you have to keep in mind when debating with Polaris is that he is generally right. And there is always a "but" attached to that. There is no cannon ruling attached to damaging gear from normal gunfire (for instance), however a logical extension of the rules (house ruling, oh no!) is that some items might sustain damage (carrying your cyberdeck on your back while running away from corpsec with automatic weapons is a surefire way to end up with an expensive paperweight, if you don't have sufficient case hardening, for instance).

Polaris doesn't argue that you can't or shouldn't make that leap, he simply argues that doing so is beyond what a strict interpretation considers canon. From a strictly canon POV, gear is invulnerable in most instances since there are no rules for damaging it, however that statement is one that almost always is followed by the phrase "not in my game".

[edit] On the subject of a tank of tropical fish... what book did you find that in? In canon there are no tropical fish tanks! wink.gif [/edit]
IcyCool
QUOTE (TinkerGnome)
Polaris doesn't argue that you can't or shouldn't make that leap, he simply argues that doing so is beyond what a strict interpretation considers canon.  From a strictly canon POV, gear is invulnerable in most instances since there are no rules for damaging it, however that statement is one that almost always is followed by the phrase "not in my game".


Actually there are rules for targetting and damaging objects. There just don't seem to be rules for how that damage affects said objects.
TinkerGnome
QUOTE (IcyCool)
Actually there are rules for targetting and damaging objects. There just don't seem to be rules for how that damage affects said objects.

I was under the impression that the major discussion was collateral damage to gear. If the gear is being targeted, it's not collateral damage smile.gif
Shanshu Freeman
QUOTE (Polaris)
Zazen,

I would walk away from the table and never look back. In SR your personal gear is always considered indestructable unless that piece of equipment is specifically targeted with a called shot. This is the price you pay for a generalized damage system.

Doing it any other way is a completely hose job to the players.....especially if you only use it for fetishes and not for things like the amunition that the Street-Sam is carrying too.....

-Polaris

what if a sam got hit with a lightening bolt? Do we roll to see if his ammo cooks off? :confused:
Polaris
Shansu,

Sure because in this case there are explicit rules within the spell in question that covers collateral damage to gear. All I am saying is that in combat, there is no way you can do collateral damage to gear strictly according to canon unless a specific effect says otherwise. Elemental Manips do....but in a very limted way.

As for MIPS, there is no rule in MIPS that forbids you from having a fetish of OR 10 either.....read the rules there carefully please (already covered in any event).

I am right. I am not saying you might not houserule, but if you took away festishes because of collateral damage without any preexisting houserule to that effect, I would walk right off the table....and I would have every right to. [For the same reason if you destroyed a Sammie's gun with no preexiting houserule, he would have every right to walk away from the table.]

-Polaris

P.S. This is indeed groupthink in action. If the rules don't make sense, then petition WizKids to change them but don't trot out your houserules and somehow claim they are canonical because they ain't.
Sphynx
Only one making claims about Canon here is you Pol, and your House Interpretation is not Canon, sorry.

Sphynx
Shanshu Freeman
yarrr



kthnx
Zazen
QUOTE (Polaris)
I am right. I am not saying you might not houserule, but if you took away festishes because of collateral damage without any preexisting houserule to that effect, I would walk right off the table....and I would have every right to.

But would you walk from the table if someone tried to feed their tropical fish?

Really, stop thinking that the lack of a rule is itself a rule. It's not.
Polaris
Guys,

Actually I am 99.99% sure that what I am saying is in fact canon. I tell you what...I will write to WizKids and ask. Be prepared, however, for a major serving of crow.

-Polaris
Zazen
That doesn't answer my question about the fish, though. What's the difference between half-melted bullethole-ridden gear and a properly maintained fish tank, according to rules which never mention neither of them?
Polaris
Zazen,

You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. Let's stick strictly to combat shall we.

BTW, John and the rest were *wrong* about their force three elemental manip spells. My ceramic OR 10 fetishes would be totally immune for yet another reason (in fact would be immune from any imaginable force 3 elemental manip).

Read the latest errata and weep:

QUOTE

p. 182: Sorcery Test [12]
Add the following sentence to the 4th paragraph, before the sentence that begins..."Consult Object Resistance Table..."

"The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object. Vehicles add Body and half armor to object resistance before dividing in half."



That makes elemental manips suck even more than they did already. Oh, and Zazen, let's wait for WizKids to get back with me. I just wrote them. You may be suprised at what they have to say.

-Polaris
TinkerGnome
Actually, Polaris, you're wrong on that one. Elemental Manipulation spells have their own target number system, explained on the next page. OR does not affect elemental manipulations... which is the primary reason to use them, really. That, and a lightning bolt can melt just about any vehicle to slag, going off the R3 example (not that I think that's right, either).
mfb
polaris, honestly? any group you walk away from because they prefer to fill gaps in the rules with common sense will probably be glad to see you go.
Polaris
Mfb,

If a group took away your gun as a sammie just because you took a light hit from an Uzi, and you weren't warned about such rules in advance I bet you would walk from the table too.

Really, it is that simple. There are too many here seeking to screw a mage with fetishes because they don't like fetishes.

TinkerGnome,

I stand corrected. Nevertheless it remains a great reason to use ceramic fetishes and foci....because it makes them almost immune from Power type spells.

-Polaris
Zazen
QUOTE (Polaris)
You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. Let's stick strictly to combat shall we.

That's not really logical, but fine. Pretend I'm tending to fish in combat. ohplease.gif

Would you walk from the table if I tried to do that? Would you consider it a departure from canon?
Polaris
Zazen,

You are attempting (and failing) to trap me an a reductio ad absurbum fallacy. The problem is that tropic fish have nothing to do with combat so the entire analogy is false.

Done.

-Poalris
mfb
no, polaris, it's not false. rules are rules, whether they apply in a combat situation or not.

as for my street sam, i'd walk from the table if the GM was being an unreasonable ass about something. saying that your fetishes--or any other equipment--stands a chance of being damaged or destroyed when you're hit by an explosion / powerball / spray of autofire is not being an unreasonable ass.
BitBasher
Actually MFB is right, the argument he presents, which is "Anything not expressly granted by the rules therefore must not exist in the world" is valid both in combat or out. Combat is irrelevant to his point, and the question he asked you.
Zazen
QUOTE (Polaris)
You are attempting (and failing) to trap me an a reductio ad absurbum fallacy.

Maybe you should look that up. If you do, you'll find that it is not a fallacy but a perfectly sound reasoning tool.

I'll take your persistent dodging to mean that you cannot find any relevant difference between tending fish and damaging gear.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012