Noticed this below it,



The guideline I was given was that if the non-metahuman form's body is less than the armor value, then they're trapped and take damage equal to that armor value. It's a bit excessive (imagine taking 8P damage, resisted with your "less than 8 body" without armor), especially considering that (assuming your body doesn't change) a body 4 character can wear 8 armor without penalty.

Slight error here. It states that if a character doesn't drop prone immediately (on the shooter's turn, which by RAW is impossible, as dropping prone is a free action IIRC, which the defender does not have at that specific moment) they take damage.

I think what you're looking for here is that if he doesn't drop prone or take cover on his next action then he takes damage. "Not moving" is not "dropping prone" and therefore would not render the character safe. It gets murky when the defender has fewer passes than the attacker and you're using the optional "everyone has four passes with regards to movement" rule, but I'd say that instead of continuing to move the character could drop prone instead.



Is there source for this? Or is this "from the guy who thought up the quality and has no RAW basis"? This would actually effect my local game, as Bear Who Digs Through Walls [bear shifter adept] picked up Magic Resistance, as it was way cheaper than buying an equivalent value of willpower.



In addition, they're also not making any new links, as far as I am aware. That is, they're only reusing established links.

You can only take free actions if it is or has been your turn; being able to drop prone against suppressive fire is a matter of having better Initiative.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "drop prone immediately" bit, which seems to be the source of your consternation.


The description for the Magic Resistance positive quality makes it incompatible with the Adept, Magician, and Mystic Adept qualities - the additional qualities mentioned are in Street Magic and so of course are not mentioned in the main book; the question is only intended to clarify that the same limitation should apply to those qualities as well.

Here's my question;
Is the current FAQ up to date?

Uh:

If a character is an area covered by suppressive fire, does he need to make a defense test immediately when the shooter starts firing?

If he is in the suppressed area and he is not behind cover or prone—then yes, he must resist the attack as soon as the bullets start flying.



Ok, fair. I am AFB at the moment, so I wasn't able to check. Most of the FAQ entries have a "see page X in book Y" when they state things as fact, whereas this one was short and had no reference.

Okay, that's not the FAQ saying a character has to drop prone immediately (though if they can do it, that's a neat trick), that's a statement that if the character is not already behind cover or already prone (i.e. standing around in what is presumed to be an exposed location), then they need to make a defense test. I had thought that was clear, but I guess it could be misread.

Accurate through Running Wild, aside from one or two little artifacts (cellular repair and HMHVV should have been Essence Drain, I think).

Thanks AH.

Then include it in Errata. As I said, I will even write the damn thing for you, if you want.

Until then, it does not belong in the FAQ, regardless of "playability" or other arguements.

No, it doesn't. It's rather quite clear what a modifier is - I even provided the quote for you. Anything that affects a Dice Pool other than Attribute or Skill is a Dice Pool Modifier.

Such "double-dipping" (applying Specialization to each split pool) is the only reason splitting pools is usable to begin with, and is RAW.

Here the FAQ specifically & directly contradicts the Rules as Written, apparently in the name of "playability" [Note: This ruling effectively makes Mystic Adepts useless outside a few very specific, specialized, niche builds - which are still generally done equally or better with other archtypes]




And again, points dedicated to mana-based abilities applies to the use of Magic-based skills. While there can be an arguement made for that affecting maximum Force & determining Overcasting, it is unsupported. Show me one quote - just one - from the rules declaring maximum Force, & Drain being Stun or Physical, being based off of skills.

I can show you several quotes where such values are not even remotely related to skills.

Musp, you're trying to turn steak into beef here. I gave you the justification behind it, but I'm no longer a freelancer. You may bitch and kvetch to me about the FAQ - I put most of it together - but I can't change any of it. Send an e-mail to Jason, with a book reference, and Ghost willing he'll respond to you faster than he will to me.

[/edit]If it makes you calm down a little, I think the main fuck-up in that one was the example. I can't even remember if I wrote it or if it was error-by-committee at this point.

So if I go, and there are 8 dudes in front of me all currently standing out in the open, and suppressive fire them, I immediately, on my turn cause all eight of them to make a defense test against [base] DV? Then when its their turn, if they don't drop prone they have to resist [base] DV again?

Well, considering that you're spraying bullets about like water from a hose, and all of them are standing in front of you and in the open...yeah, pretty much. The hail of bullets starts during the shooter's first Action Phase, and proceeds until the shooter's next Action Phase (barring, y'know, being disarmed or killed). So your eight mooks standing out in the open would make an initial defense test, and then if any of their Action Phases came up before the shooter's next they would have the option to bite the dirt (drop prone), or in some other way attempt to move out of the area or get behind cover or shoot back, etc. (all of which again represents the possibility of getting shot, since you're standing in front of a guy shooting wildly at your general direction, and so would require another Defense test).

Every time I try to understand the vehicle rules, I get more confused. It doesn't help that "Acceleration" doesn't seem to mean what they think it means.

Well, yeah, that's the root of the problem. You have to use the metahuman movement rules for vehicles and it...doesn't work.

I just read through the FAQ section again and got even more confused.

Would anyone care to provide a clear explanation of how vehicle movement is supposed to work?

Ḭͤ̋̐ͤ̽̽̚t͎̩̱͓̜͙͛̈̍͋͘ ̗̯͎̣̦͉͌ͬͯc̖͕̲̬̾̐͌̀̎̔̈a̾ͧͮͨ̎ͧ̚n̞̼͋̈́̈ ̮̦͑͂n̘̹͈̩ͪ̂o̱̜̮̥͚̓̋ͩ̿̅̾͠t͕̠͛ͣͥ̚͟ ̷̘͍̦̼͇̩ͬͤb̷̯̰͉̘̟̎̉ͣ̾̾ͩͅê̢̝͂͂ ̦̠̻̪̹͙͔̍ͧ̃͗͌̓͡c͆̍̋͛͌͋҉͎̙̳̯̥͇͇o̦̣͇͕̺̎̐m̺͙͉͇̓ͧͨ̄ͦ̐͑p̜̙͈̤r̨̥͒͗͐́͑̑̍e̦̊ͮͦh̡̻ê̶̩̤̞̆͐̚n̲̼̗̹̉͑d̖̓̄̓̌ȩ̦͖͛ͫ̔̄̋̑d̨̐͒̐ͩ̌͐̆.̦̥͍͉̳͗̉ ̲̣̮̩͑̒ͮͥͮ̾ͧͅ ̢̃̅̾I̷͓͉̩͙͕ẗ̢ ̻̫̟͗̈̈́̑̾iͭs͎͓̱̑́ͦ̒ ͖̤̥͆̈́̕Z͕̞̝̖͈͕ͩͭ͑ͥ͊ͥA̗̺̦̳̖̿̑ͭͤ͆͘ͅL̜̟̙̗̽̒͒ͧͪ̒ͬG͙̰̻̺̐ͅO͙͙̻̲̲͎͇

my take of the vehicle rules, based on SR4a and faq is this:

do not care one bit about acceleration during chase combat.

do not care one bit about speed during normal combat.

during chase combat, only compare speed to speed (consider the vehicles to always move at their max safe speed) for opening opposed tests, and forget that acceleration as a stat exists.

during normal combat, have the vehicle behave as a normal person, using acceleration stats.

I always thought the right answer to:

How does vehicle Speed and Acceleration work? is:

They don't!



cya
Tycho

Hence my ZALGO post. The rules simply don't work as written.

Use a minigun and it gets really ugly DV 9 FTW.. and you only need to fire 30-40 rounds or so.

Also notice the defenders all get their Edge in addition to reaction on this test without having to use a full action - most serious opposition will simply dodge the bullets.


In fact in my games I used to think this was too puny, especially for SMGs... soaking 5 damage is nothing when you're a troll and even unarmored civillians will not get killed by this alone unless I use some strange mook house rule - suddenly driveby with random spraying into crowds is mostly harmless.

Reading over the BBB on Suppressive Fire, I find that the FAQ is correct. "Any character that is currently in (but...)"

I have to agree, it's nice to have an updated FAQ and it does clarify a lot. Ancient deserves some kudos for pushing this through and getting it almost completely correct.

However, I have to back up Muspellsheimr on this one... those two examples are clearly in full contradiction to the RAW provided in SR4a. I had the exact same reaction reading that section.


Those belong in errata (which also has the benefit of playtesting), not in a FAQ. As they do not clarify one wit, they instead confuse the issue as they're in direct contradiction to the rulebook. The rulebook is very clear on what a dicepool modifier is... If the devs do not want to treat some items as dicepool modifier... then they should create a new category of skill mods and errata it. (right now we have attributes, skills + skill mods, and dicepool modifiers... by RAW the first three get split then apply the second).


Even the hardened armor doesn't bother me... my argument was based on a simple fact and intended balance result (limiting obscene armor pools). EVERY other source of armor in the game states that it is cumulative w/ the worn armor total (and worn armor doesn't stack). Hardened has no words to this effect leaving it the only case of armor w/o a stacking/non-stacking clause leaving it ambiguous and people just assumed it stacked. (nothing in the rules stops a creature from having say 5 points hardened, and 8 points natural armor... IE: 8 points to resist all damage but only immune to 5 or less giving a lot more leeway in critter creation). So in this case, the FAQ actually does clarify a clearly ambiguous area of the rules.

So, someone that has 1 IP can still use Suppressive Fire to great effect. However, now... while someone with 4 passes still eats through a ton more bullets, they also have more potential to do damage per turn.

The only way to deal w/ that is to give everyone 4 passes of sorts. Which can get a little unwieldy though it would play better IMO. But that's not really germaine to a FAQ thread.

IE: EVERYONE breaks their movement up into 4 passes... someone w/ a single IP only gets 1 complex or 2 simple actions spread out across those IP's.

IP1: decker moves behind cover
IP2: decker stays behind cover
IP3: decker fires 2 shots from his pistol (2 simple action) or lays down one pass if covering fire.
IP3: decker out of actions but moves his final quarter movement.

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it, actually.

Forgive me if these were brought up earlier and I missed them. However, these are the 3 big concerns I see from the new FAQ:

1.
This seems to open the door for spellcasting with implanted (paid for with Essence) radar. While I think it's really cool that you can -finally- cast spells if you know where your opponent is (for example, a Wolf shifter's sense of smell), it will be interesting to see what happens now that the "must have sight between you and your opponent" is potentially not in effect.

2.
While I'm sure it closes the door for some abuses, I think it's kinda lame that a Street Sam and someone possessed by SATAN!! are on the same page now. Now there is no reason to have the Troll Sam (or most Sams, actually) be possessed: they generally have close to maxed out attributes anyway. (Trolls and Body being an exception, since it's hard to raise that stat.)

3. The Mystic Adept thing (which hs already been brought up).

... so the solution to Mystic Adepts -not- being overpowered was to... nerf them some more? Not only do they have all the same restrictions as before, but now they also have -another- cap on the number of ranks they can put into their powers?

I think the idea of using Mana spells through walls should still be off limits. The reason I say this is because if the PCs can do this, then the security mages can do this too (if they have the 'ware). You know if the corps can have mages do this then they WILL have those mages getting the 'ware... completely stupid if they don't.

I still would like to know if a hacker can program an emulator for his smartgun system so he doesn't need to have the smartgun eyeware or contact lenses. If the Technomancers can do it with a complex form, then why can't hackers do it with a program.

So, with the clarification of the Endowment Power, it would appear that a projecting magician capable of Invoking could have his friendly Invoked Guardian spirit Endow him with Materialization/Possession.

A Materialization tradition magician could then Materialize into the Physical plane (taking care not to go beyond her 6 hours of Astral Projection) right by her body, put on her armor, and be armored and ItNWed for some kick-ass fun. The Possession tradition magician could Possess his own homunculus (8/8 + ItNW).

Here's a thought: Given that an Endowed Power is at the Force of the Endowing spirit, the Materialization/Possession would then be at that Force. A Materialized or Possessing entity has Attributes at its Force. So, the astrally projecting magician who enters the Physical Plane would have Attributes equal to the Force of the Endowing spirit. Not only the core Attributes, but things like Edge, Essence and Magic.

This would appear to be a way that a clever and lucky magician could temporarily increase her special Attributes. A magician with Magic 4 who survives Invoking a Force 8 spirit could temporarily bump her Edge, Essence and Magic to 8. Cool, eh?

Not only that, but the spirit could endow the mage with Endowment!

The mage then could endow the entire party with Innate Spell (spirit endows it to the mage first) and give the entire party spellcasting, magic, edge, astral projection, possession....Endowment...

It's a giant magical circle jerk.

(Quick, exit thread before succumbing to the desire to make a sexual joke!)

You can't be Endowed with more than one Power at a time. So, if the mage has Endowment, that's all he can give. (SM, p. 99)

They could all be well Endowed, though.

too late...

Actually the limitation is that a character can only have one Endowment from a particular spirit. Multiple spirits can grant Endowment to a single character who could be well and multiply Endowed.

"No character may gain more than one power from a spirit in this way at a time."

This is pretty much how I interpret the rules already. Although the rules seem to indicate that said decker can't change his mode of movement on subsequent passes unless he spends an action.
Delaying an action is already covered by RAW:

"A character can also delay his action until the next
Initiative Pass."

In this example, the decker first declares walking movement rate (get to cover) but taking no action. Then he remains stationary, then takes his main action(s), and in the last pass uses a free action to resume movement again (potentially a sprint action).



Oh btw about the suppressive fire part, it seems the enemy CAN drop prone when they are fired upon:

"Drop Prone
A character may kneel or drop prone at any time, as long
as he is not surprised (see Surprise, p. 155). A character who is
surprised may not drop prone."

Notice it says: At any time. The same words are used on the Full Defense action.

Perhaps the guy that did the "art" for Cyberpunk 3 toyed with this for a time...

@ Mystic Adept

So, I have now de facto two seperate magic attributes, magic (spellcasting) and magic (adept powers), which have no synergy effects except how bright I am on the astral plane, how strong I am when punching through wards ... and when paying karma to increase the magic (spellcasting + adept powers) attribute?

Is it just me, or is a cyber/bio-mage (or in other words: some magical guy using magic-hurting stuff) not just cheaper in karma than a mystic adept (or in other words: some magical guy using magical stuff) even when paying twice for a point of Magic lost via essence-loss, while he can in addition increase his other powers, i.e. ware with money instead of karma, which a mystic adept isn't able too?

Some playing with numbers shows also that a mystic adept which splits his magic 50/50 loses around 3/7 of all the karma he puts in the attribute (compared to a fictional character who really uses two magic attributes), while some guy splitting it 5/1 doesn't. Which means, the mystic adept which opts for versatility instead of specialization and hugh dice-pools ... pays even more for mediocre abilities, while mystic adepts which specialize and so have higher pool gets a less immense price-up.

Weird.

Kind of OT, but does Draco's Zardoz or whatever post screw up the thread for anyone else?

If only by its stupidity.
Technically, the whole topic is displayed just fine for me.

Yeah, defensive options are all interrupt actions as far as I recall.

What, we're seriously doing name calling now? Name calling and other general personal attacks violate the Terms of Service. Consider this your warning.

In the future, if you feel frustrated with someone adding a post you feel to be less than worthy, don't contribute to the unworthiness in kind.
-F4.0

It's "ZALGO" and entirely depends on if you a) have the right language fonts installed and b) have your browser set to display in UTF-8.

Otherwise you get a bunch of garbage characters (diamonds, hex values in boxes, and question marks). Even then it depends on your browser. I did a test and IE8 doesn't render the same UTF-8 string the same way as FireFox 3.5 does.

That question was discussed a long time ago, positively answered by Rob Boyle and subsequently made it's way into FAQ and Augmentation, p. 127: "Cultured bioware may also be alpha, beta, or delta grade."

There's nothing to discuss there anymore.

Yep, that's what I'm getting. That's a little annoying, but thankfully your sig doesn't seem to off-set it. So..

Don't forget that mystical armor's astral armor as well! That protects you from most spirits up to force 8 in astral space / astral combat.

Likely due to which extended characters are in use. They were pretty much generated at random (both are "mini fuckups" it gets crazy sometimes, though my signature was edited by hand to give an increasing level of corruption from one end to the other, though this one is still my favorite).

Ah... so one way to read "a spirit" is "a single spirit" as opposed to the way I had read it, "a source which is a spirit". Am I in the minority here?

The original wording is just ambiguous enough to be interpretable both ways equally validly.

See, I know that it's because I browse at work and they still only use IE6 with no additonal languages attached. So.

Just making sure it wasn't something else.

Hehehe.

I'm certainly no expert on guns, but it seems most instances of "firing into a crowd" in the news cause remarkably few casualties, so I don't have a problem with this being "mostly harmless".


So you're purposely including stuff in your sig to give people a hard time while reading Dumpshock, then?