How so? The evidence usually offered is the changing of terminology to current day buzzwords, but none of those words are MS-specific.

Yeah, I still don't see where all this MS stuff comes in. Firewall is a general term, not an MS term...where else is MS supposedly affecting the Matrix??? I just don't see it.

Perhaps they are talking about how easy it is to break encryption by the rules. That would make sense if everything was MSed.

You'll have to forgive my late response, been out of town.

Anyway, unlike Cain I wasn't so much refering to any specific setting details or game mechanics (such as the use of the terms System and Firewall, and the integration of different OS's - I suspect these are the main gripes on Cain's part. Given my background in computing, limited and out of date as it is, I realize these things are not Microsoft specific ).

I was refering to the general "feel" of the new Matrix. This may not be true for everyone, but to me the new Matrix feels a lot more "fluffy", poorly thought out (from a security standpoint), and a lot less well defined (although this is largely due to it's nature as a collection of distributed mesh networks).

But morever, it seems to me as if the Matrix has lost it's teeth. For example, can't hack the parent node controlling a camera you need out-of-order? No problem, just hack the camera itself. Being attacked by Black IC? That's not too much of a problem, cause you're only running in AR and the worst it can do is crash your icon. Want to be the fastest non-otaku hacker on the 'Trix? No prob, just slap in a set of Wired Reflexes 3, some Reaction Enhancers, and run in AR mode 24-7 (sure it's slower when casing a node, but that's the only downside). Combine these things with the fact that IC can't fry your deck or burn your programs anymore (at least til Unwired comes out), and the fact that alerts are only triggered under very specific situations (when you crack the firewall, glitch, or at the GM's whim), and the overall effect seems IMO to make the Matrix a lot less dangerous of a place.

Thus, a fluffier, less secure, less dangerous, easier to use and "rule" in Matrix evokes a similar feel to that which the Matrix would have if Microsoft designed it, IMO.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding key rules or just be flat out wrong, and this situation could easily change when Unwired comes out (and hopefully it will).

Actually, I'm pretty much OK with encryption as it is

A security camera is almost certainly hardwired, unless the security designer is a moron (which could certainly happen).

True, but AR usually sucks for hacking.

This is definitely a problem. Being in deeper than AR does give bonus dice though, which is a tiny offset. I'm guessing/hoping that Augmentation and Unwired will have some nice 'ware for hackers that will make spending all that cash and essence on wired reflexes a tough call.

My biggest hope for Unwired is that it will have a decent sized section entitled "Hacking Rules for Dummies." I'm not highly interested in playing a hacker (I already sit at a computer writing code all day) so I haven't really studied the hacking rules. They're definitely easier than they used to be, but judging by the number of questions that pop up here they're still a bit confusing.

IMO they went from confusingly complex to confusingly ambiguous.

I assume as much. It's the old waiting game though
damn SR for being so awesome. Really though, a FAQ of some sort would make me a very happy camper.
that being said, i've run about 3 sessions now and have done more matrix related things than i probably did in the 10 or so years since i started playing SR. more ambiguous yes, but infinitely more appealing.

I agree totally, which is why I find the new "everything's wireless" line of thought perplexing to say the least. After all, why would any security consultant with even half a brain allow anything even remotely sensitive or security related to be susceptable to wireless hacking?

Why? Aside from the definite time lag when probing a target, I see no game mechanic reason not to do all your hacking in AR. Hell, to get around the probing time lag, just probe the target node in VR then switch back to AR once you're in to be immune to the worst that IC has to offer.

Yeah, I'm hoping pretty much the same thing. Specifically, I'm hoping that Unwired will solve the AR/VR issue, go into a lot more detail on Matrix topology, and bring back something like security sheathes to prevent hackers from getting lazy after they sleaze past the firewall. That alone would go a long way to giving the Matrix back it's teeth

Definitely. They're a massive improvement over the old rules (of any edition), but like Dr Dodge said they're too ambiguous.

That's peoples' perspectives, and isn't (IIRC) actually in the books. Nowhere does it say that all defense mechanisms are wireless, people just like to jump to that conclusion so they can have another reason to complain.

All other things being equal, you get more dice and more initiative passes while in VR. you can get cyberware to increase your IPs in AR, but that costs money and essence that could go towards other things. Once Augmentation comes out I expect the number of hackers using wired reflexes and AR to drop because of the influx of cyber and bioware geared towards hacking.

It may be hard to accept, but Microsoft didn't invent the internet.

Yeah, FanPro looses the license then what company in their right mind will want to pick up publishing it even with Jordan in total control? With sales in the toilet, no one will want to waste money on something that won't even break even based on past sales.

And even if they do, do you really think they'll just go back to publishing SR3 like System Failure and SR4 never happened, totally disregarding any sembalance of continuity? If you think the fan reaction to SR4 has been bad, just try for a second to imagine what the reaction would be to some lame stunt like that.

Btw, I wasn't aware that bluetooth was based on simsense technology, thanks for the update

Because wireless is cheaper. *Far* cheaper, by the 2070s. It's already about even in terms of pure parts to buy wireless equipment as opposed to hardwiring everything, but the amount of labor and time costs make wireless the superior option these days. By 2070 transmitters will have gotten cheaper, while the rarity of copper and gold will make wiring buildings more expensive, so the cost disparity will grow even more. Why have 4 hardwired cameras when you can have 20 wireless ones, all tied into the same central hub, cheaper and with less setup hassle?

Cost disparity alone should make te vast majority of security wireless in the future. Maybe you'll see some hardwired systems, around the most sensetive and permenant areas of the building, but the majority of the seciruty should be wireless simply due to this bottom line.

Exactly. So, instead of a sci-fi, view of a dark near future game; we're given a dressed-up version of d20 Modern.

Jordan might consider selling it himself. Besides which, stranger things have happened. Everway never sold worth a damn, but the line was bought and sold at least three times that I know of, and is still in active ownership. At any event, what would be best is an "Ultimate Shadowrun" edition; a total reboot of the timeline, not unlike the oWoD-nWoD switchover. The metaplot is sufficiently convoluted as to be a major turnoff for new players.

It's already starting to. So, SR4's version of the future is already obsolete, and wasn't very original to begin with. SR1's view was original Gibsonian with magic; Sr4 is just a rehash of what's present, not what we might to see in the future.

Then your original comment was mistaken. You have not taken out a Citymaster with a pistol, at best you would have taken out a driver and that's if the GM was being extremely lenient.

Your entire argument is based on a Called Shot being possible here, it wouldn't be in most games (unless the driver somehow rolled down the armored window to shout at you). A Citymaster is a closed environment and it shouldn't be impossible to call a shot at a driver, since he isn't exposed at all (at the very least he has an armored glass between Mr. Lucky and himself) - this is where those lines about "Target an area not protected by armor" under Called Shots comes in. If your GM allows someone to Call a Shot with flechette (or anything else) at a passenger in a completely enclosed vehicle bypassing both the armor of the vehicle and the passenger through a Citymaster's armored window, it is his judgement call since this is where "with the gamemaster’s agreement" comes in (again under Called Shots).

Second, I see no reason under RAW why the driver wouldn't still be able to Dodge (I wouldn't allow Full Dodge but that's just me) - by this I mean the driver in the vehicle not the vehicle itself - since he is being specifically targeted not the vehicle. I also see no reason why he can't use Edge on this Test either. There is nothing forbidding passengers in a vehicle from dodging incoming ranged attacks under RAW so there is no real reason why he can't duck to the side, for instance. In which case those 2 hits, were a Called Shot possible might still be reduced.

Finally, were all this acceptable to the GM (and I repeat the problem lies with the GM, not the system, since at any point he can rule that this particular Called Shot is not possible), then the Citymaster would crash, but it would certainly not kill everyone inside unless it was travelling at exceptionally high speeds and the people inside were unarmoured wimps with low Body and no Edge.

What this means is that the hypothesis is only as viable as the GM allows it to be, not the system - since the system has a built in check: "with gamemaster's agreement". To some GMs making completely impossible shots such as this is acceptable because they play highly cinematic games, in my game it isn't, and the cool thing is the rules allow for both styles of play.

Sure a GM could allow someone to make a Long Shot roll if he were hooded, smothered, tied up, and one wound box away from death in the complete dark - but it's the GMs call. The system only allows it if the GM allows it first and that check is built in. If the GM can't decide what is acceptable if improbable and what is outright impossible then the problem is not the system since the burden of approval is his.

This hypothesis results from a misread of the rules.

Simply put, burning 1 point of Edge to get a critical hit does not give you 4 net hits. It duplicates the result of having rolled 4 net hits without actually having 4 net hits.

By RAW all a critical success is is a bonus descriptor for performing well on the test. Specifically: "the character has performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it" - nothing more, nothing less.

So while 4 net hits = critical success. And 1 burned point of Edge = 1 critical success. 1 critical success does not equal 4 net hits.

Well, heaven forbid that new players take a few moments to read the fucking history section that gives the basic details of the metaplot. Besides, it's pretty damn easy to play and enjoy the game without knowing or caring one bit about the metaplot, kinda like my current crop of newbie players are doing. SR4 basically ignores most of the metaplot anyway, which takes the fangs outta your argument.

As for "Ultimate Shadowrun" what I said before still applies - how many SR fans would stand for that kinda of a bullshit marketing stunt? I for one wouldn't - I thought it was pathetic when they did it with WoD, and it would be even moreso in a setting focused game like SR.

Of course, with SR4 up for two ENnies, it kinda looks like your take that it's dead-out-the-gate is shown for what it is.

Like I said, I wasn't aware current RFID tags used simsense technology. Cause we all know simsense is already obsolete because Microsoft just came out with it yesterday.

Btw Cain if you hate SR4 so much, why the hell are you here in an SR4 forum bitching about it?

You are of course free to hold that opinion, but I think it's obvious that quite a lot of people disagree with it. Having SR technology closer to real life technology no more makes it a version of d20 modern then having guns and magic does.

Incorrect. According to page 162, you can specifically target a passenger *without* calling a shot; in fact, it's out right impossible, since you can only call a shot to bypass armor, add damage, or hit specific vehicular components. What you're doing is aiming at the windows or other weak spots in the vehicle; and Citymasters most definitely have windows and gunslits. The "called shot" rule only come in after the passenger has been specifically targeted.

First, 3 successes, not two. Passengers in a vehicle can dodge, but at a -2. However, a driver under full simsense is at -6 to even notice he's been hit. So, unless he's got a base Reaction of 9+, he's not going to even be able to try unless he longshots. Since he's being targeted, as opposed to the vehicle, he can't use his driving skills to dodge any more than any other passenger.

And even if he does spend Edge, that just proves my point. The only way to get through a SR4 combat is to spend Edge left and right on both sides. And even with Edge, he's going to only likely score 1 successs, assuming an Edge of 3; he will still die a bloody death.

You're joking right? According to the vehicle combat section, if you're in a vehicle that crashes, is rammed, or suffers an explosion or area-effect attack, it shares the damage equally with its passengers. As per p160, the base damage of a ram is determined by the vehicle's body plus its speed. A Citymaster with Body 16, and traveling at a moderate speed of 61m/t (45mph, for the Americans), will be dealing out 32P to each and every passenger before reductions. No matter how you cut it, that's a lot of damage. Let's assume that the people inside have Body 3, full security armor with helmets, and can even use their Reaction of 3 to help dodge. That gives them a total of 11 dice to try and soak damage with, for 3.66 successes, rounded up to 4. We'll even blow a point of edge apiece for an extra three dice, giving them 1 extra success from their Edge score and 1 from a rule-of-six. 6 successes versus 32 damage: 24 boxes. Even the most heavily cybered troll is going to be smeared by that. I suppose we could have them burn Edge to escape certain death; but then my point is really cemented. In order to handle a straightforward (if exaggerated) combat example, and assuming a ten-man SWAT team plus driver, the NPC's have spent and burned a total of 22 Edge to get through the first round of combat.

Next, burning a point of Edge does not "simulate" a critical success:
you automatically achieve one. Period. Read page 168: you automatically achieve a critical success. What's more, one critical success *does* equal four or more net successes; the rule on page 58 is unambiguous: "Any Time a character scores 4 or more..." etc, etc. It doesn't matter if it's from buring edge or not, it's a critical, and therefore equals at least 4+ net successes. A critical has been mechanically definined as 4+ successes; the problem with the autosuccess rule is that it calls for a critical, and not just a straightforward win. Which is another problem running straight back to the playtesting area; it seems clear that no one really pushed the edge-burning rules to the highest degree.

"A few moments" is fine. I have two dedicates shelves full of Shadowrun material, each of which deals with the metaplot to some degree or another. None of that has been invalidated by the SR4 switch, in fact, most of it has been added to in complexity. And Shadowrun doesn't "ignore" the metaplot, it makes excuses for it. Check "On the Run" for details of how they're still sticking to it, by making a perfect example of a CP2020 adventure with a Toreador.

The "Ultimates" line has been selling like hotcakes for Marvel. Infinite Crisis was a marketing bonanza for DC, if you can remember back then; I understand that they're doing another one right about now. White Wolf and WotC pretty much dominate the RPG market right now, so the reboot hasn't caused a massive fan revolt, or hurt NWOD noticeably. In point of fact, it takes an awful lot for fans of any RPG to stage a revolt; they tend to be a pretty loyal bunch, and will buy anything. For example, Palladium fans keep buying Palladium stuff by the dozens, even though the game hasn't had any real innovations since it was first published. WotC pretty much relies on this fact for its marketing strategy: every new core book will sell the most, so they try and push one out every five years or so. According to my friends there, they're beginning to wind down production on 3.5, to clear the way for 4.0 in the next few years. You can expect them to start saturating the market with 3.5 copies, and maybe even start releasing paperback versions.

Shadowrun has always been a popular line. You could have converted it to d20 and expected great sales, simply because it had a new version number on the cover. However, it wears off. For example, Adam turned me on to RPGnow.com, since I was having technical difficulties with drivethrurpg. Check the tags on the hot sellers, for both this month and for the history; I happen to know that they update the monthly list every day. Runner Havens, being new, is shooting to the top for this month; but there's not a single shadowrun product anywhere else on the monthly list; and SR4 or On the Run doesn't even appear on the Top 100 of all time. Bear in mind, this is a site reccomended to me by one of the two *actual* FanPro employees, if they're not moving much Shadowrun product anymore, it's clear that the honeymoon is soon to be over.

LOL! You're pointing to a scenario where a gunman fires through an armored window into a driver rigging a citymaster as proof that you have to spend edge to get through a fight? Have you actually ran any SR4 combats? Edge gets used sometimes, but it's far from a necessity.

If the GM decides that the character is targettable despite being inside a giant armored box, if he follows your logic that the rigging driver is somehow near a gun slit, and if he lets you make a called shot, then the driver may very well be dead. So what? That's a lot of ifs.

That again? *Yawn* Your prior comments on this resulted in you basically saying that vampires in SR have to be laughing stocks because otherwise they're just WoD ripoffs.

Yeah, because being nominated for ENnies doesn't mean anything.

Make up your mind, without the Called Shot all armor (vehicle and personal) modifiers apply and you're not going to do any damage. Without the Called Shot rule to miraculously allow the shot to bypass the armored window on the Citymaster in the first place the flechette won't even reach the driver (unless of course the rigged driver is sitting up in the driver's seat with an open gunslit in front of him for no reason whatsoever except to make himself vulnerable). If you don't use the Called Shot his personal armor also factors in, so you're the one who is incorrect. Your example falls apart without the Called Shot.

Most certainly. And who said they're open? And why would a rigging driver need a window in the first place?

But for argument's sake, even assuming the most lenient interpretation of the rule on p. 164 (which for the record is almost identical to SR3) which allows even a passenger sitting in an fully enclosed MBT tank or a Citymaster a viable target, the rule says the passenger (by benefit of being a passenger) still gains the full armor of the vehicle to resist damage (plus any personal armor worn). So your example still breaks: overlooking for the moment the full VR rigger's need to be sitting in the driver's seat and looking out an open window in the first place, even if the GM allows the Called Shot at the passenger in the enclosed vehicle (with the intent of bypassing his armor), strictly by RAW, since the passenger is the specific target of the Called Shot (as you've so clearly stated) only his personal armor is potentially being bypassed and the vehicle armor still counts to reduce (or nullify) damage - meaning the flechettes and most ammo are getting splattered on the armored glass window.

You'd better run by me why a rigger linked at a tactical vehicle's sensors in a combat situation is not going to notice the muzzle flash and heat sig of gunfire coming from the vehicle he is chasing at extreme range. If he's stupid enough to be driving with an open gun slit or window he's definitely going to be ducking.

This just underlines that you really haven't played the game. Edge does get used in Combat but less so than old Karma Pool and Combat Pool (because it's rarer than both and burning it makes it even more so). I'm willing to GM/walk you through a typical SR4 combat situation (multilevel) with typical characters to prove you wrong too. I'll even let you set the stage.

The bit your missing is that under Damage and Passengers it says that passengers (like the vehicle itself) get the additional bonii of the Vehicle's bod and armor as well.

Never said it did. I said it duplicated the effect of 4 net hits which is something different.

Read my post again. Let me rephrase it for you:

A "critical success" means that the character has "performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it." That's all it means. That is what a critical success is. It's a bonus descriptor. It grants no extra bonii or advantages (except as specifically stated otherwise). Achieving a critical success allows a character to "add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it". That's all it does. You succeed with a flourish regardless of how many hits you got (or did you miss the "The character must be capable of carrying out the action—you can’t buy a critical success for something you have no hope of achieving." bit in the Burning Edge section"?).

There are two ways of achieving the critical success (and so being able to "add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it [the task]"): getting 4 net hits or burning 1 Edge.

The rules do say 4 net hits equal a critical success and the rules say 1 burned Edge equals a critical success. The rules also explain what a critical success is. At no point do the rules say 1 burned Edge = 4 net hits. Any other interpretation is your own.

Again this is your opinion and a whole lot of people disagree.

Strange that cause I could have sworn I saw... nope I did see. Maybe your suffering from a case of selective blindness but I think you'll notice SR4 is hanging in at n#14 of DriveThru's Hottest Items and that's a year after release (and for the record three weeks ago was the first time it dropped below the Top 12 in almost a year of sales). In fact the only core book in the top 15 ranking higher than SR4 is Exalted 2nd Edition.

Barking up the wrong tree James. Everyone knows those kinds of Awards are only really significant when its a cult game like Savage Worlds that gets the nod. God forbid fans actually nominate SR4 for Best Rules the first year its eligible. Nah, never gonna happen.

Incorrect. You do not need to call a shot to specifically target a passenger. See page 162. You do need to call a shot to bypass the armor; but that's besides the point, you can specifically target a passenger without calling a shot, then call the shot to bypass the armor of both himself and his vehicle. The only thing preventing this is the prohibitive penalties; which are easily bypassed by spending a single point of Edge.

So, the process works like this:

1. Mr. Lucky chooses to target the driver of the vehicle, accepting whatever penalties the GM feels are appropriate, and adding the vehicle's armor to his soak.

2. Mr. Lucky Calls a Shot to bypass said armor, and takes a huge penalty.

3. Mr. Lucky spends a point of Edge, and takes out the Citymaster in one shot.

Let's look at that one, shall we?

First of all page 164 says nothing about vehicular damage, so you're already wrong on that point. Page 164 is all about magic; it's page 162 that has the applicable rules. And what do they say? ""Vehicles that crash suffer damage from whatever they collide with. Apply damage as if the vehicle rammed itself (see the Ramming Damage Table, page 160)"

So, we reference page 160. Not only do we get the 32P damage code, but we get this nifty little sentence: "Characters resist ramming damage with half their impact armor (rounded up)."

For a guy who supposedly "hasn't played the game very much", why is it that I'm quoting the rules to you, who supposedly has been playtesting them? It's a common failing among yes-men and rubber stampers to ignore issues, while it is the task of critics and product-testers to show the flaws.

You tell me, you're the playtester. P228: "If you concentrate, you can still percieve through your meat senses while in full VR, but it's very distracting and you suffer a -6 Perception test dice pool modifier." He might notice that someone is shooting at the vehicle, but he's at -6 to notice that he's been shot.

Combat pool was baked in, so that's not a fair comparison. However, I will challenge you to use the previous situation, without using a comparable amount of Edge to what I'd be using as Karma pool in SR3.

Now, to be absolutely fair, I'm going to have to point out that the Citymaster thing comes from a very old story from my gaming group, involving a player with trained dice. He tried to take out a Citymaster by targeting the driver through the window, and was given a TN of 14 to do so. He scored six successes, without spending a single point of karma. The vehicle crashed, but thanks to APPS and other passenger protection modifications, most of the SWAT team inside managed to survive. The firefight then continued; thermal smoke grenades went off, as well as flash packs, completely destroying the ligthing conditions. Not a point of karma was spent on either side, but the SWAT team was successfully beaten. Try to do that without spending Edge in the slightest.

Yes, did you? Otaku, with Resonance 6, can summon up to a force 12 sprite. A force 13 sprite is impossible, as that goes over double his Resonance. He has no hope of achieving the Force 13 sprite, so we can prohibit that one. However, he has a chance of pulling off the force 12, so he can burn Edge for it.

No, because 1 burned edge can mean a few different things as well. However, we can use the following logical equasion: 1 Burned Edge = 1 Critical Success = 4 net successes. Besides which, if we *don't* define it that way, we get into lots of trouble any time someone burns Edge on an opposed test. (We're going to get into lots of trouble with that anyway, but it's a starting point.) By restricting it to 4 net successes, we're actually implanting some sanity into the broken rules.

Fans don't actually nominate ENnies. A panel of judges looks over the net presence (among other sources) of a product's popularity, and nominate it based on fan reviews and their personal choices. It's not the same thing as a Fan Choice Award, where fans directly vote on a product. The actual ENnies are different, but this is the year of Mutants and Masterminds. SR4, incidentally, was nominated for best product, not best game-- apparently I'm not the only one who feels like it's an incomplete beta, and not a complete game.

Sorry about the page misquote I'm using layout pdfs of the BBB and the page count is 2 off from the actual printed page, didn't think to check.

As James put it. If the fully VR rigger is sitting upright and exposed, if he's sitting in the driver's seat, if the gunslit/armored window is inexplicably open, if he doesn't instinctively react to fires shot in his direction when he knows he's exposed - then you don't need the called shot to bypass vehicle armor. I had assumed no trained rigger driving a tactical vehicle would be that stupid though.

Regardless, I'll clarify: the Called Shot is necessary to actually take out the driver. Without it the driver might even be hurt but he won't be dead. And it's the GMs call on whether this particular Called Shot is possible.

So let's see: shooting at a vulnerable spot in someone's armor, at extreme range with no vision enhancements, in the rain, from a moving vehicle at a moving vehicle, while the target is only visible (if at all) through a gunslit (let's assume an open gun slit cause the armored window would ruin your example). And its up to the GM to allow that Called Shot if he thinks its feasible (definitely wouldn't be in my game) - note this implies the GM believes a vulnerable spot can be actively targeted under these circumstances at all (before luck/Edge factors in a lucky shot). Long Shot Tests only comes in after the modifiers to the normal Test is calculated (ie. the Called Shot is factored).

I repeat, contrary to what you said above, the Called Shot is essential. Without it you're not going to succeed regardless of whether Edge is spent or not. Armor (vehicular or not) only comes into play after a Called Shot is accepted or not. I repeat my initial argument. GM uses common sense and rules no Called Shot, this situation doesn't even arise.

Why not...

The applicable quote on p. 162 (see my correction at top of post) says:

Agreed, and to which I add that p. 162 Passengers and Damage says to treat ramming as an attack (final paragraph) and hence the aforementioned quote on the passengers gaining "protection from the vehicle’s chassis" in the same section also applies. Meaning they'd get the vehicle armor modifiers in a crash the same as they would if they were shot.

At the risk of becoming repetitive I suggest you read what I posted. Who said anything about using his meat senses? The rigger is sitting in the driver seat exposed (just for the sake of argument). His VR sensory input (vehicle sensors) tell him he's being shot at (ie. muzzle flash, heat sig, all show up) . He doesn't move, even though he knows he left his gunslit open. Right...

Boy are you in for a surprise.

Here we go again. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Combat Pool is an integral and balanced part of SR3 combat. You ignore it all you want (along with Karma Pool and Threat Ratings), it's in the core rules to the SR3 game system and in the vast majority of games it is used.

You're missing the point. Could Karma have been spent? Could both sides have spent Karma? Yes to both questions. Honestly I don't care whether your specific game uses modified (apparently "correct") SR3 rules. It doesn't cancel the reality that the vast majority of players use the SR3 rules as written. And that means Karma could and would have been spent by both sides.

It doesn't mean it had to be spent. It means it could be spent. Same with Edge.

Nothing wrong there. My comment is exclusively to your interpretation of a "critical success".

Let me reiterate: a "critical success" is a descriptor. It is an end result. It adds no mechanical advantages to a roll. It has no benefits in itself. It produces no special game effects except letting you describe the results of your actions/Test with a flourish.

There are two basic ways of achieving this descriptor:
- a burnt point of Edge
- 4 net hits.

At no point the rules say the two are interchangeable. Any other interpretation is your own.

As a result descriptor a "critical success" does not affect the outcome of an Opposed Test (although admittedly burning Edge to add the flourish when you still lose the Opposed Test sounds like a bit of a waste).

I think you're forgetting the part about the judges being fans themselves and not industry yesmen, but hey, have it your way.

Nominations for Best Product go to the best overall "package", combining rules, presentation, look, artwork, setting and development. So you'll understand if I disagree.

Surprisingly - or not - you're ignoring that Shadowrun 4 is also up for Best Rules.

Synner, you're forgetting that Cain's SR arguements assume that the GM is a complete tool, despite the fact that the GM's evaluation of the possibility of an action, Edge or no, is an integral part of the RAW.

I don't need a magical number, some system-determined point where the modifiers have dropped your die pool to negative X and a Long Shot becomes impossible... I just use my brain. If someone insists he can Long Shot a -57 test that involves putting flechettes through an armored plate to hit someone he can't see, I don't bitch and complain that the system is utter shit for allowing such a mind-bending thing to happen, I tell him to get a life.

This isn't how we play it. We instead make sure that the attempt can be successful with some margin of probability (no, we don't have the margin defined). Summoning a spirit / sprite twice your magic rating is not something we consider likely enough to allow for burning edge. Heck, the rule itself specifies that the action has to be possible, and it's up to the GM and players to determine what's possible, with final veto rights going to the GM (if needed, it rarely is in our group, but Cain's group seems to be filled with lots of people raring to abuse anything they can).

Yet again it's a situationw ehre the GM says "I don't care how lucky you are, it ain't happening."

Can you point me to where it says you can do anything with edge? I don't see that in my book. I see rules for doing things that would normally not be possible for you, but it neither says nor implies that it means you can do the downright impossible.

GM interpretation of what is possible is not a house rule, it's in the RAW. From my understanding it was intentionally set that way to allow each GM leeway in what can and can't happen in his game. If you set a flat limit such as "no edge use if your pool would be at -10" then you limit peoples' games. Some might not want to allow longshot tests at all, while others may want to allow them for getting the one in a trillion ricochet shot that takes out the citymaster's rigger.

I haven't playedt he other games that were nominated, so can't really speak much to this one. I do think that SR4 has an excellent base for it's rule system, with some holes in it that slip in because of how constrained for space they are, or because people like to cry that the world is ending because they found an exploit that requires GM capiulation to occur, and want to scream foul agin if the GM says their stunt is insane and won't work.

It does seem like a lot of people around here are having trouble dealing with the concept of "GM discretion." Especially since it's printed all over the frickin' book. Like it or not, GM discretion is part of the rules.

Alright, it doesnt make sense to burn edge to add flourish to an unsuccessful test. Fair enough. Do the rules have to spell this out? It doesnt make sense to shoot yourself in the head with your ares predator, but it doesn't say anywhere

Now you could say, "hey there may be a situation where shooting myself in the head does make sense" and to that i say, well there may be a time when a flourishing failure may make sense too.

That old discretion keeps coming back.

Let's review the two RAW.

I'm going to assume everyone agrees that a critical success is simply a descriptor and adds no mechanical benefits (unless a specific effect description specifically states an that a critical success adds an special effect).

As far as I'm concerned there's no problem with Critical Successes achieved either through Method A or B in Success Tests. In either case you get a critical success qualifier.

Two possible problems arise when invoking Method B in Opposed Tests:
a) One problem happens if the losing character were to burn a point of Edge to get a "critical success" - to be honest, I resolve this one through my group's interpretation of the written rule. To be specific, we read the "you must be capable of carrying out the action" section literally (ie. if you've been defeated in an Opposed Test you are unable to carry out the action successfully, so you can't burn the Edge to earn the Critical Success qualifier).

b) The other problem might arise if the two participants in an Opposed Test both decided to burn Edge (similar problem came up if they burned Karma in SR3) to get critical successes. Solution a) above solves part of this problem. The roll is made and then only the winner may spend Edge. If it's a tie, it's harder to GM since both sides should be able to use Edge any way they want (regardless of whether they are PCs or NPCs) - so our ruling is whoever decides (calls) to burn Edge first takes the critical. (Though this has never come up outside of playtesting).

Either way it's not much of the problem and there is no contradiction between the rules themselves.

Again the open gunslits were just a means to make Cain's example workable. Note that in his example he was targeting the driver and not the vehicle (and Calling that Shot).

As for your example here's what I'd do. I'd turn to the group after the player suggests the lucky shot and say, "We've got the armored up driver sitting at the wheel of the fully armored APC, and player X wants to try to blow him away with a random shot fired through an air vent, bouncing its way into the main body of the vehicle, and ricocheting specifically into the driver, and finding a weak point in his armor... and he want's to make it a Called Shot to neutralize both the vehicle armor and the guy's ballistic armor before Luck even comes into play. What do you think guys, do I let him?"

I know the answer.

Actually the rule wasn't made for any such thing, since Burning Edge specifically requires that "you be capable of carrying out the action", so no, miracles are still the province of saints. If you rule otherwise that's perfectly okay, it's your game, but the core rules don't go that far.

In practical terms the fact that Edge dice don't explode on Long Shot Tests also compounds the limitation on miracles and restricts the success level of what you can accomplish. And keep in mind that Method B requires you to Burn a point of Edge losing it forever and having to buy it back up with Karma.

Hmmm, no.

My full VR rigger driving a tactical vehicle wouldn't be stupid enough to be sitting in the driving seat with an unnecessary open gunslit or window in the first place. He'd be somewhere safe possibly lying down in a driver's tank but either way he'd never be in harms way in the manner described.

Let's address this from another perspective. Let's say the target was not the rigger but a normal passenger riding shotgun and shooting out of an open gunslit/ window. I assume (under the rules) you would allow the passenger to dodge (applying the relevant modifiers on p. 162) - RAW there's no reason why he shouldn't unless he's completely oblivious that he's being targeted. In which case he'd be able to dodge shots from Small Arms aimed at him (not the vehicle btw), right?

RAW any passenger can dodge. Ask yourself: If the driver were a non-rigger, would you allow him to dodge? Ask yourself: If the driver were AR-rigging would you allow him to dodge?

The VR rigger in the example above has (for some appropriately masochistic reason) left himself exposed in a combat situation. I'm assuming he's intelligent enough to know this. He's also linked to a tactical vehicle's sensors and thereby is at least as aware of the incoming fire as the shotgun passengers/drivers above. Put yourself in his shoes. Knowing you're vulnerable wouldn't you instinctively attempt to dodge if your sensors told you someone was shooting in your direction?

The only reason I can see a VR rigger (or jumped in) rigger might not be able to dodge is if he has an RAS override built into his rig. The SR4 rules don't cover that yet - though personally I might apply Cain's -6 VR modifier for the time being (note this means the rigger still gets to make a Dodge Test or a Long Shot Test).

This isn't a case of House Rules. The Called Shot rule specifically states the GM has to agree. The rest of Cain's example falls apart if the GM says the shot isn't possible, as btw does your shot through the vent.

A lot of people complain that "GM discretion" is too common in a lot of SR4 gameplay, but that's a plus point for me. I take it as it was intended: that the GM gets to tailor the realism/gameplay experience to his specific group.

It isn't a joke. SR4 got the nomination, check the GenCon page and SRRPG.com.

The target doesn't have to be visible, that;s why I factored in the -6 Blind Fire penalty. And the gun slit can be closed, or the armored glass up; the goal is to shoot at a less-protected location, not a wide-open one. Both of these are factored into the example I gave. So, by RAW, the called shot to bypass armor is not only feasable, it's perfectly legal and allowable. The solution isn't to scream "GM discretion", which can be abused badly; it's to hardwire some anti-abuse rules into the system.

Incorrect. In a ram or crash, passengers only get one half their Impact, rounded up. (p 160, last line under "Ramming"). Your argument is correct for other types of damage, but not rams or crashes; specific case rules always trump the general ones. This explains how come a Citymaster, cruising along at low speeds, can smush everyone inside with a single shot.

You wanted an example. Yes, karma *could* have been spent. However, in this case, it wasn't. I now ask you to live up to your end of the challenge, and show how this combat could have progressed without the use of Edge.

Sorry, but no. The rules clearly indicate that a critical success is only achieved when you score four or more net successes. The *benefit* of it may only be a descriptor, but the threshold for success vs critical success is, and has always been, 4+ net successes.

Once again, just take the -6 Blind Fire penalty. Once you add all the other penalties on top of it, it's not really going to matter much. The basic problem remains the same: you can keep loading on the penalties until the cows come home, you don't change your odds of success any.

"GM Discretion" is the hardwired anti-abuse rule.

See above.

I fail to see how one could take a called shot with a blindfire penalty in the first place. how do you aim at what you can't see?

Somehow "I shoot the guy in the head through this opaque wall" just doesn't sound like it will fall under "GM agreement"

Hey, I like this idea:

New 5 point edge:

Fails with panache!
Even when you screw up, you look good doing it.

Sorry, but no. The rules clearly indicate that a critical success is only achieved when you score four or more net successes, or burn a point of Edge.

Look at the logic process here, guys.
(thanks, Synner, for the rules reference)

If A, then C.
If B, then C.

If you score four or more net hits, you get a critical success. If you burn a point of edge, you get a critical success. "A critical success means that the character has performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it."

Nowhere does it say "If B, then A," or "If C, then A." Even if it did, you'd have to more clearly define the number of hits that make up a critical success. Since the rules define it as "four or more" (and not "four") we don't actually know how many net hits you'd get burning a point of Edge in this magical world where it actually gave you a given number of net hits.

If I jump off a building, I end up facedown on the pavement. If I slip on a banana peel on the sidewalk, I end up facedown on the pavement. If I slip on a banana peel on the sidewalk, logic does not dictate that I jumped off a building.

Not quite, since this isn't an if/then statement. It's an equality statement. So, the logic looks something like this:

A = B
C = B

Therefore, A = B = C.

Exactly the problem. A determined enough rules-lawyer could argue that he deserved more than four successes, because he scored a critical. Limiting it to four is the only sanity in these rules.

Clearly, this was missed in playtest, because it opens up a serious can of worms. Granted, the example I gave isn't going to be such a problem that it needs to be resolved just yet; however, Unwired and the advanced rules for reducing base times will suddenly turn this trick into a serious problem.