Okay, you want me to be entirely honest?

While being aware that the rules do not state this one way or the other, I am attempting to comb the text for the assumption that the text is making. In other words, I am attempting to establish intent by finding statements in the rules that can only be true of certain conditions are met in order to establish what these conditions are. This is a slightly different type of reasoning than you find in high school, so I'm not surprised that you don't recognize it.

In essence, yes, I am drawing a connection between two unrelated rules in order to establish a third thing. This is a common thing to do in a number of fields I have pursued, but again, I am assuming you're not familiar with those fields.

I am doing this because, frankly, I find your solution so completely idiotic as to actually cause me physical reaction symptoms. It requires reading quite a lot into the rules, it defies common sense, and--cardinal sin, in my mind--it makes the game less fun by taking options out of the hands of the players. You're arguing for a GM's right to look at a player who rolls poorly, smile, and say, "trololol, TAKE IT," especially in the case of a critical glitch, and I will never abide for people who support such poor play as that. In my hands, Shadowrun would not have glitches at all--but as they are now, they deserve to be played with what I clearly believe to be the intent of the game's designers. That intent is not your perverse reading of the text.

You spend Edge in either case. The difference is that spending to negate the botch automatically removes it, while rerolling opens the chance of rolling another botch.

That said, I allow rerolls on botches but not criticals. They're separate beasts in my book. And treating them as different really doesn't harm anything, and neatly solves this little debate.

People seem to be getting caught up discussing timings. I know most of this is interpretation, but for what it's worth here's my take on it. The result of a roll (glitch, crit glitch, success etc) isn't determined at any set time. The result is what is shown on the dice, and remains for as long as that is what the dice show. If the dice show a glitch, then while the dice show it it's a glitch. The effects of the glitch aren't determined until the GM explains what happens, so up until this point there is the time to negate the glitch or whatever.

As I play it, if the player chooses to re-roll the dice, then they no longer show a glitch result and so a glitch is no longer carried out.

@Tsuyoshi,

I am sorry to hear that you are feeling physical distress. Take a deep breath and try to relax - you are too close to this argument if the way other people interpret the RAW or play their game is stressing you out.

In a RAW argument (or an argument about differing interpretations of the RAW), arguments about RAI or underlying assumptions are irrelevant. You can use them as justifications for your RAW interpretation, but ultimately they do not prove that your position (or the other guy's) is either right or wrong by RAW.

Your suggestion that the other interpretation people are espousing is an excuse for the GM to f*ck with players is entirely without merit. Under these interpretations a crit glitch can still be downgraded to a glitch using Edge. Furthermore, to my best recollection noone on my side of the argument has suggested that a crit glitch should equal automatic death. Roleplaying games are exercises in mutual storytelling, and for the experience to be fun the relationship should not be antagonistic - the GM shouldn't be out to get the PC (with the notable exception of games like Paranoia), nor should the PC expect to insta-win. I am sorry if you have had experience with bad GMs, but I can safely say we ain't all like that!

You may re-roll all of the dice on a single test that did not
score a hit

.
56
Note that characters may spend Edge to negate a glitch


twice within the book it states this as THE WAY a character can negate a glitch. implying you cannot negate a glitch by re-rolling dice, as it is possible to succeed at a task, but to still glitch it. after reading all the wording and how and where it is used i STAND by my opinion that you must spend an edge point to negate the glitch entirely, if you NEED to succeed at the test, re roll, you still have the glitch, but you can still succeed.

A glitch is a mistake, error, fumble, or random
fluke that causes the action to go wrong in some way. It’s possible
to both succeed in a task and get a glitch at the same time.
For example, a character who rolls a glitch when jumping over
something may knock the item over, or land on a nail she didn’t
see on the far side. The exact nature of the glitch is up to the
gamemaster, though we recommend you choose a negative effect
that is dramatic or entertaining, but not disastrous. The
nature of the glitch can be tempered against the number of hits
achieved: 6 hits and a glitch would be a minor setback, while 1
hit and a glitch would be a severe annoyance.
Eyeballi ng Modifiers
Let’s face it: while modifiers help to add
realism to a game, they can also bog down
gameplay when you have to consult a big list
of possibilities and do a bunch of math. If you
seek a sleeker and more fluid style of play, try
one of the following options:
Adjust the Threshold: Rather than counting
modifiers, tell the player to make a standard
test without modifiers and simply adjust
the threshold to account for how you think
modifiers would affect the difficulty. Note
that this only works for Success Tests and
Extended Tests.
Use the Most Severe Modifier: Instead of
accounting for every potential modifier that
could affect a test, quickly identify only what
the most severe modifying circumstance is,
and just apply that one. If it’s a situation
where you feel a lot of additional modifiers
may apply, increase it by 1 or 2 according to
your gut feeling. This should allow you to
seize upon a single modifier quickly rather
than accounting for all of the possible affecting
elements.
For example, let’s say you want a character
to make a Perception + Intuition Test to notice
a clue left in a room. Rather than looking
up the Perception Test modifiers, the GM decides
that the biggest modifying factor is that
the room is dark, and applies a –3 modifier for
that alone. If a lot of other modifiers might
also apply (the character is wounded, the clue
is partially hidden under something else, the
character knows what he’s looking for, etc.),
the gamemaster can simply nudge the modifier
up to –4 or –5 depending on his “eyeballing”
of the situation, rather than looking all of
the modifiers up.
Shadowrun, Fourth Edition GAME CONCEPTS .
.
Note that characters may spend Edge to negate a glitch

How about this, then.

It seems that there is a disconnect between rolling Edge with the Initial Roll and added Edge after the initial roll.

In the first case, it is irrelevant that Edge was rolled with the DP, as it is the initial roll. As such, at the end of THAT PARTICULAR ROLL, you check for Glitch or Crit Glitch. Since Edge was already added, you cannot address the glitch issue, since it is irrelevant.

Now, for Initial Rolls that did not have Edge added (After the Fact Edge Expenditures, if you will). You check for Glitch or Crit Glitch immediately afterr initial roll. You do this, becuase you cannot resolve to remove said Glitches with Edge until it has been checked to exist. Therefore, prior to Edge expenditure, the Condition MUST either exist or not exist.

Now, in my reading. Once a Glitch exists (critical or otherwise), it will always exist unless you use the Ege expenditure to remove said condition. If you elect to reroll with a Glitch condition, the condition still exists, as you have already checked for its existence. Any re-roll results will add hits, but will not remove the glitch condition that already existed.

Since Prior expenditure of Edge in the initial DP is irrelevant to the argument (ie you cannot again spend edge to remove any glitch condition) it is not a requirement that I include its premise in the argument. *shrug*

Here's how it works:

The Shadowrun rules, once again, are unclear on the subject, so go with whatever version your group is comfortable with.





-k

I completely agree with that tymeaus

Unfortunately, that too is debatable. Under strict reading of the rules, edge dice added to a roll add to the general dice pool, and not the specifically phrased 'Dice Pool', the latter of which determines whether a glitch is rolled or not.

By the rules, there exist modifiers which change the amount of dice you would throw, but not the amount of dice that would theoretically exist in your Dice Pool. Since edge isn't a DPM, it can't have an impact on the status of a glitch. Its extra dice would contribute nothing towards checking hits against a critical glitch, or additional dice to balance out dice showing a 1.

I'll add that it's the portion of the rules in this particular debate that I like the least, and I'll probably house rule it away anyway.

Crap, I forgot to add latin, Uhhh... Veni, Erigo Infernum, Cede!

well as he stated it is still irrelevant. CARPE NOCTURNE

The problem is not the critical glitch meaning instant death it is the failure meaning death. If reducing a critical glitch to a normal failure glitch were the only option on a roll that showed half the dice pool of 1s and no hit, you'd have tests on with Edge expenditure is entirely pointless. If other options were available but would not remove the status of a critical glitch, you would produce two kinds of critical glitches (those without hits and those with hits only on edge dice), which has no basis in the rules.

Why I think the other interpretation is wrong is this: dice don't produce successes/failures/glitches, rolls don't produce successes/failures/glitches, but tests do. Only when tests are concluded can the result be determined without producing results that are clearly against the rules.

Let's say someone rolls 1,4 on a test and opts to spend Edge. Remember, there is no rule forbidding any of the uses of edge (except for those that obviously don't apply to that kind of test like rolling Edge with the rest of the dice or getting extra IPs)
-Crit glitch downgrading is clear under any interpretation, but would result in a failure.
-If you reroll non-hits and then roll at least a hit, either the critical glitch must automatically be negated or you have an illegal critical glitch. If instead you say the result then becomes a regular glitch, you do something that the rules do not give you permission to do.
-If you roll Edge dice afterwards, you obviously modify a roll. As I proved already, this must be a dice pool modifier (SR4A p. 61 A Note on Modifiers). If you say it's not, you again do something that is not in the rules.

In the case of a regular glitch rerolls must negate the glitch because the 1s are not there anymore, and keeping 1s is never mentioned in the rules. keeping the hits for the Edge reroll however is explicitly mentioned.

Long story short, conclude the test before determining the results.

Notably, the edge spent to negate a glitch could(!) even be spent after the GM has described the glitch. "Nope, I thought I'd be ok with the glitch, but no, I'm spending Edge to negate that effect. It's too detrimental to my goals."

So this interpretation of when glitches are determined is the strongest.

Choosing to use edge doesn't change the 'stickiness' of the glitch, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Alea iacta est.

Maybe in soft liberal arts and things like law with their current penchant for relativism (no absolutes and redefining words to mean whatever they say they mean). But not in any of the hard sciences or engineering I can guarantee you that.

Any such conclusion in a hard science or actual 'logic' exercise would need to be proved. Which you cannot do as the rules are nebulous.

Which is why my position has always been that there are a few possible readings all of which are valid by RAW. The rules are incomplete. There has been no prior commentary by line devs like Synner/jmardy or the FAQ to clarify the issue and establish an official position.


My only argument for any particular reading is stating my own preference for only allowing a glitch to be removed by spending edge to remove it because in my experience glitches are already exceedingly rare and they add a lot of spice to the game. One memorable one for me was glitching a summoning check... the GM pullled up a spirit which had a lot of pluck and was entirely unhelpful... including deciding to be loud and obnoxious when I was trying to sneak and blowing surprise round of combat. Not fatal by any stretch an annoyance and something which made everyone at the table laugh.




Why thank you... it's so nice to know I could send such a thrill up someones leg and cause such physical discomfort.

I'm starting to understand all those folks collecting all those precious care bear tears.

You make glitch synonomous with bend over and take it... when it's not. Even critical glitch doesn't need be that bad. The problem is that it is a story mediated by a GM and dice results. Not all stories are successful. Yet many expect victory to just be handed to them... maybe it's part of that everybody wins menttality they put in schools today. Glitch or critical glitch is not synomous with character death... even having a heavy pistol blow up in your hand is only soaking a 6P (5P pistol +1EX) damage shot and needing to find a new gun... for most chars... that's only 1-2 points damage after armor.

When I was in school... particularly in my logic... shoddy logic like tieing two completely unrelated rules to invent a third which meant anything I wanted would have gotten me a failing grade. Similarly trying to make any kind of assertion like this in hard science/engineering course would have been impossible without substantial experimental data showing a clear correlation.


Just to draw an analogue... on why when things are determined is so important. Because it's entirely related... Some GM's only allow edge to be spent before final success or failure of test is known. You roll your reaction pool to avoid getting hit and get 2 results... do you let it ride or pay the edge now and mabe not get hit or just save it for the damage soak roll if it wasn't good enough? He's over there with a poker face hiding his dice. Others allow edge to be used afterward. Frankly, I've found it works either way. This is almost the exact same argument... either the glitch exists or doesn't or is undetermined when the decision to spend edge after is made. The RAW is silent on this matter so you can't make a conclusive argument like you keep trying to do. Just as the RAW is silent on if the edge can be spent after the opposed results are known or before it is known.

If edge can be spent so late that the GM has already said, "your gun has jammed" and ignore the effect, then you can spend edge before all the dice have even been rolled and still negate the effect for that roll.

Therefore it is not necessary to know when a glitch is determined in order to know if edge can be spent to negate it.

And thus, that rule cannot be used as a factor to indicate when that determination occurs.

I.e. because the rule does not indicate which step it can be spent in, but can be spent in all of them to the same effect, it is irrelevant (and useless) to use it to say "this is when glitches are determined" when figuring out of the other options factor into the glitch-determination at all.

I think you're reading into it too much. There is only one use of edge that specifically interacts with glitches, and that's downgrading the glitch itself. The rules say you can do that after the GM tells you what the glitch ends up doing. This doesn't imply that edge is now treated as a DPM (Though it does imply you hate your GM if you ask him to think of a suitable glitch and then tell him it doesn't happen. Srysly, making up glitches on the fly is hard ).

No, no it doesn't. I said I could.

As for the rest of it:
We've made our arguments and they are sound.

I see your argument and I see how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree with it.

Sorry, I meant the plural YOU. While I think the intent was to provide understanding between GM and Player, it feels more confrontational then anything. Demanding something be created for you just to reject it? Not cool.

Hold on, where did I even imply that it was a demand?
I didn't say "What's the glitch effect? Oh? Well, I spend edge, ha, take that."
I said, "I can live with a minor glitch. Wait? THAT'S what you're going to do? No thanks, I spend edge."

lol, ah fuck.

Im not implying you are an asshole.

I'm saying I can see a situation where someone, WHO ISN'T YOU, could be a total dick and have the full backing of the rules.

Then the GM stops making up new ones. "Your mother dies." "I spend edge, then" "Moving on."

Yes. Which is why I don't like it. It's confrontational between player and GM.

...Which is really what's being discussed. As you should know if you're actually as schooled as you claim, mathematical results don't have "intent;" that form of logic is not going to give you the best results when talking about a set of rules (laws, even). What we're doing in even discussing RAW versus RAI has clear analogues to constitutional textualism versus originalism. I stand by my assertions.

I have no objection to use Edge to get vitally needed hits on a crit glitched test, and have no objection that you could get a crit glitch with hits. It's no stranger than a glitch with no hits.

All uses of Edge are exceptions to the normal rules. Longshot gives you a chance where the rules say you have none. Going first in initiative lets the REA 3 INT 3 guy impossibly act before the REA 9 INT 5 bad guy. Downgrading a crit glitch we have already covered.


What I am saying is that the test result has already been determined, and use of Edge to reroll or negate a glitch takes place after this. The language and grammar used in both uses of edge supports this: you cannot reroll non-hits until you have established what hits and nonhits are, and you "negate" a glitch rather than "prevent" it.
In response to your 1-4 question
Crit glitch: Spot on.
Reroll: I do not see a crit glitch with hits as "illegal".
Edge Dice: "May modify the outcome of a test" does not mean DPM. The reroll is a separate roll alltogether.


If a glitch reroll is a separate roll, the ones are still there, and nixing the original roll is never mentioned in the rules either. The rules say that hits from the edge reroll are added to hits from the original test, which also completely fits my interpretation of events.

Conclude the test before determining the result, and then, if necessary, use Edge to subvert the results before determination of outcome.

This is irrelevant, and does nothing to reinforce Dakka's position. If anything it undemines it, as it clearly disbunks his "conclude the test before determining the results" mantra - the results have been determined (there is a glitch), the GM has described the glitch, and you can still use Edge to negate it.

If you are trying to claim that this implies that you can use Edge to negate a glitch before it has "been determined", it does no such thing. There is a step between "determining results" (result: there is a glitch) and the GM "describing the glitch" (resolution: the glitch is this), so your rules quote does not infer anything about being able to negate a glitch before it has been determined.

It is not an issue whether doing that is strange or not. The issue is that it is not allowed by the rules. A critical glitch cannnot have hits much less be a successful roll.

Yes, but these are explicit exceptions. You create exceptions that are not in the rules.

A critical glitch is defined as at least half the dice pool of 1s and not a single hit. If the rerolls generate hits this is obviously not a critical glitch. It can't be a regular glitch either, if you determined the critical glitch beforehand, since a roll cannot be a regular glitch and a critical glitch at the same time.

The reroll most likely should not be a dice pool modifier, but the rules are unclear on that. Classifying the reroll as Dice pool modifier would not cause any troubles though, as far as I can tell. Using edge to add extra dice (either initially or after the normal roll) however, is neither an attribute modifier, a skill modifier nor a threshold modifier, so it must be a dice pool modifier. (See p. 61 A note on modifiers)

An adjacent question, what happens if for example someone rolls one hit and not a single 1 on a dice pool of 10? Since you determine the glitch after the initial roll this is not a glitch. What happens if the player opts to reroll the non-hits and gets 5 or more 1s? According to you it has already been determined that the test is not a glitch so the ones are meaningless? Redetermining the status is not in the rules.

If a reroll is a separate test, the 1s cannot count. Saying they do is like saying the result of defense test will modify the subsequent attack test. For this to happen you need explicit permission to do so (like with the counter strike adept power). Keeping the 1s is not mentioned, keeping the hits however is.

The thing is a test need not be concluded after a single roll (Extended test are another example where this is the case).

@Draco
Along with Dakka, you have been active on these forums long enough to know what a RAW discussion is. In regard to using Edge for rerolls, you have made your arguments, and with the exception of almost normal, I do not see anyone claiming that your interpretationis not RAW-valid (although RAI is another matter).
For you to show my side's interpretation is wrong, you have to quote the RAW that unambiguously debunks our position. This you have not done, and until you do our interpretation is also RAW-valid and our arguments sound.

@Tsuyoshi
You can look at underlying principles, similar rules and the text in other rules to add RAI justifications to your position if you can find them. This is what I did in exploring what happens to the original 6 in the only other dice reroll mechanic in the game. But in an argument about the pure RAW, these justifications mean squat as they do not explicitly contradict the opposing view - it is easy to counter with "this rule and that rule are different", which is exactly how Dakka contradicted my comparison of Edge rerolls with the exploding 6's reroll mechanic.
Our interpretation is valid by RAW and supported by RAI evidence (what happens to the original 6 when it explodes in the game's only other reroll mechanic, the other rule for using Edge to negate a glitch, and the grammatical construction of both Edge reroll and glitch negating rules imply that hits and glitches have to been determined before Edge is used).
You are entitled to stand by your assertions, and express your opinion that our interpretation is wrong and or yours is right, but unless you can conclusively disprove our interpretations with the black and white of RAW, then our position is necessarily valid by RAW, whether you think you are right and we are wrong or not.

Look, this is beyond silly.

The question is: if you roll a fumble or critical fumble, are you allowed to reroll the failed dice to try and negate it? RAW is somewhat ambiguous on this one, but RAI is clear: the answer is no, otherwise there would be no need for the rule to spend Edge to directly negate it. All this nonsense about a critical fumble with successes (that's just an ordinary fumble) is unnecessarily confusing and complex.

Silly?!? are you suggesting that a board as intelligent and sophisticated as Dumpshock would waste 12 pages worth of posts with... silly arguments?
I, sir, am deeply shocked that you would even consider such a thing!

We on the other side have provided several counterexamples and alternatives to show why this is false; the simplest is that a player might want a sure thing against an uncertainty. (Since you can't Edge twice, if you reroll or add more dice and get a glitch again, tough.)

Use of Edge is an exceptional circumstance in which the normal rules are superceded, so if Edge is used to reroll on a crit glitch, the rules are not clear on which trumps which. Either use of Edge to reroll allows a crit glitch with hits (Edge rules trump glitch rules), or the rule that crit glitches cannot have hits precludes the use of Edge for rerolling in the case of crit glitches (crit glitch rules trump Edge rules). The RAW is not clear on which rule takes precedence in this case, so this neither confirms or denies the validity of our position.

The RAW also doesn't explicitly limit Edge-trumps-normal-rules exceptions to those noted in the Edge rules, and your assumption that this is the case is a RAI argument. Please note that if you use this RAI assumption, use of Edge to reroll a crit glitch arguably becomes invalidated because a crit glitch by definition has no hits, so you cannot use Edge to create hits and thereby create an "illegal crit glitch" because the Edge reroll rules do not make an explicit exception for this circumstance ... which takes us nicely to Cain and almost normal's position.


If the reroll is considered a separate roll, the rerolled dice are not DPM or anything to do with the initial roll. I don't see how this is hard to understand.


Right, if the reroll is a special auxilliary roll made purely for the purpose of boosting hits generated in the original roll, any 1's in the reroll are irrelevant to the glitch status of the original roll. As the rules say, "hits" are added to hits from the original roll, not "dice results". And before you ask, because the Edge reroll mechanic is a unique auxilliary roll that is not a separate "test" in itself, the reroll is not subject to glitching.


Right, and as I keep replying nor is nixing them.
Extended tests are a different animal to normal tests, which is a good job for your position as glitches are determined after each dice roll in the extended test.

RAI is definitely not clear on this subject, otherwise there wouldn't be three different common interpretations.

If RAI is really clear, no one cares what RAW says. (Take the Spirit Materialization Power as an example. RAW contradicts RAI, but everyone goes with RAI.)

Actually, it is a RAI argument against your side's interpretation because even in the case of a crit glitch with a DP of 1 (low DP have much higher chances of generating a glitch on the reroll*), then the probability that rerolling gives a result better than using Edge to downgrade the glitch is huge, and only gets bigger as the DP goes up.
(Use Edge to downgrade the glitch = no hits, automatic test failure, and a glitch; Use to reroll: Crit glitch (16.7% probability), no hits no glitch (50%), 1 hit no glitch (33.3%) = 83.3% chance of better result using rerolls)

As pointed out by your good self way upthread, the fact the glitch negating use of Edge is vastly inferior to the reroll use is not in and of itself an invalidation of your interpretation of the RAW, but it does provide RAI credence to Cain's and my positions.

*If you consider the reroll dice have anything to do with the determination of glitches, which I don't.

There are enough situations where a critical glitch would kill you and all other results would just be a nuisance. In that case you wont risk this 16.7% chance to die.

As a side question, before this thread, did people even know others interpreted the rules so differently? I never once considered anyone played it any other way

Well, I did consider the two options, that you can or cannot use other Edge options after initially rolling a Glitch. That's why I started this thread.

I did not initially consider that you could negate the Glitch by re-rolling, though I can see where the people who go with that interpretation are coming from.

The discussion was definitely helpful to get a better understanding of the various options, though.

Bye
Thanee

This is not the case. Strictly speaking RAW has it that a critical glitch is caused by such a roll, not that they are one and the same thing.

I.e.

A: (Half or more are 1s) n (None are 5s) n (None are 6s) => Critical glitch occurs

B: (Half or more are 1s) n (None are 5s) n (None are 6s) <= Critical glitch occurs

C: (Half or more are 1s) n (None are 5s) n (None are 6s) <=> Critical glitch occurs

A is RAW. B is not which means C is not.

Therefore Midas is correct in his assertion that a critical glitch with successes is not illegal. The most that can be argued (without relying on supposition) is that it is counter-intuitive, but this is subject to opinion and mine (for what it's worth, not having picked a side yet) is that it isn't counter-intuitive.

Had no idea and hadn't even thought to question my interpretation.

Also hadn't spotted that the glitch rules talk about downgrading critical glitches to normal glitches whilst the Edge rules talk about negating critical glitches. I think I've seen both sides quoted in this thread with nobody addressing the implications of playing one way as opposed to the other.

Well, I'm reasonably sure, that critical glitches are downgraded, not negated. I would consider the different wording an oversight.

Bye
Thanee

Right. It goes from a critical glitch to a failed test with a glitch.

Which is only ever worth doing if the failure in itself is not devastating. Since there are only very vague guidelines as to what the difference in repercussions between a failure glitch and a critical glitch is, unless the player waits until after the GM has described the potential effects, it is never worthwhile doing. Even then it is a gamble that the glitch is substantially (as in justifying the expenditure of a finite resource) less painful than the critical glitch.

Even if the critical glitch was totally negated you would only do that if the failure in itself was not the problem.

Aerospider: I assume the n stands for the logical operator AND. Where does it actually say that B is not. This interpretation hinges on the, IMHO erroneous, opinion that rolls can be glitched. Tests can be glitched, not rolls. A test is the whole process from the decision to do something to the description of the results.

He's trying to use the Intersection operator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29

So yes.

Just make shit up.

Critical glitch on a dodge, you slip, your helmet falls off, and you expose the top of your head to the gunfire.

Fail glitch on a dodge, the shooters hits become net hits and your armor gets damaged.

It doesn't say not-B, but the point is that it does not say B. It does say A, but A cannot by itself prove B.

You make an interesting conjecture. Shall have to check the book again.

Well, that's bullshit anyway. Neither tests nor rolls are 'glitched', it's the Dice Pool result that causes a glitch.

If that's the case, it's easy to modify the glitched result. By changing the result. For instance, rerolling.

Yes. If you re-roll, you would change the roll.

However, to reroll legally, you would need to use edge, which is not a DPM, which therefore cannot change the status of a glitch.

I'm glad we finally agree.

So spending edge to reroll DOES negate glitches. I'm glad we finally agree.



Nice way to conflate two different uses of edge.

It always has. It just wasn't legal. I'm in ecstasy that we agree on this.

I think it's not that hard to come up with situations where downgrading a glitch is better than risking a reroll.

Some GMs will kill an PC if he has a critical glitch in a situation that was dangerous anyway. After all, it's the worst possible outcome of a test that can happen. Many nice GMs will still not do it, but remember that this edge-use-option was written for all player groups and play styles, not only for the ones with nice GMs.

In reality, even a single lucky bullet fired by an untrained (and edgeless) shooter can kill instantly, if it hits the head. In shadowrun the only rule mechanism that can reflect that risk, is a critical glitch on the damage resistance test (or maybe the dodge test). As a GM I use to rule that a critical glitch on a damage resistance test is an instant kill if you dont wear a helmet, but only for NPCs. But some GMs may prefer a grittier game style and rule it this way for PCs too.

If this use of edge isn't usefull in your playstyle, that doesn't mean that it is generally useless.

And remember that NPCs can use edge too. If the barkeeper connection of a PC is hit by a bullet in a shootout, and rolls a critical glitch with his very low damage resistance dicepool, I would rather use the negate-glitch option, so the PC gets a chance to stabilize him before he dies.

But enough of my own rulings. Here are some RAW examples where downgrading a critical glitch instead of risking rerolling is a serious option. Especially if you have a low dicepool.

Climbing:

etiquette and glitches:

Quick Draw:

Destroying Barriers:

vehicle test glitches:

Addiction tests:


If you have the "Gremlins" negative quality, glitches may be guaranteed if you reroll (since you need less 1s), so negating the glitch with edge may be your only option.

If a critter uses the "Accident" critter power against you to inflict a glitch or critical glitch, rerolling can often be unlikely to succeed, but using edge to negate or downgrade the glitch will always do the trick.

The same is probably true for the "Gremlins" Power of sprites. (But I don't know much about sprites.)


As you see, many uses for the negate-glitch-with-edge option. No need to forbid the rerolling option to justify its existence.