Full Version: Cyberzombies...
| QUOTE (toturi @ Sep 12 2007, 12:04 PM) | ||||
Even if that were true, then it begs the question: whose common sense should we use? Yours? If it is the GM's, then there already is a rule as written for that.
I won't know. They aren't in my ass. Ask the guy who came up with that example, they're probably in his ass. |
Didn't say they where.
Nah, don't actually like most mammals. Sorry no buttmonkeys either.
Now since Frank returns on the 16th I'll let him explain how all this CZ crap works and how he wanted it to work.
Btw Frank's sister, our sammy is going the CZ route. Needless to say I won't be standing anywhere near her with that damn background count.
@Mr.Croup ah yes, I'll have to check that out, I had heard about it. Maybe ol Neil named him after a horse part.
@Toturi: Who's common sense? Why yes, use mine of course, as i am clearly the overlord and god of shadowrun.
That was sarcasm by the way.
That was sarcasm by the way.
That background count of 4 is aspected toward the cyberzombie. So it's of no detriment to his spellcasting ability (if any such ability was possessed before becoming a cyberzombie).
similarly nowhere in the Rules, as Written, does it say that the background count is aspected towards the cyberzombie. Unless i've missed something, would you be so kind as to point it out for me?
(i don't have a copy of street magic on me at the moment)
(i don't have a copy of street magic on me at the moment)
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup @ Sep 12 2007, 12:36 PM) |
| similarly nowhere in the Rules, as Written, does it say that the background count is aspected towards the cyberzombie. Unless i've missed something, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? |
That's exactly what I brought up when she mentioned the CZ stuff. Wow DejaVu. I guess inquiring minds want to know.
I didn't get an answer from Frank though as he was going through my fridge at the time hitting my orange Mountain Dew. Am I the only one addicted to that stuff?
For the record I agree with Mr. Croup. I said if the CZ has an aspect well then shit I'll aspect it to me. I've got geomancy. But how do I rearrange her furniture? Get the point?
Ha, if i want regular Mountain Dew (didn't even know they had an orange flavour out) i have to buy it online as i've not found anywhere in the UK with an actual physical point of sale that i can purchase it from (at least not in walking distance) and i'll be damned if i'm paying postage for a few tins of soft drink.
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup) |
| Ha, if i want regular Mountain Dew i have to buy it online as i've not found anywhere in the UK with an actual physical point of sale that i can purchase it from (at least not in walking distance) and i'll be damned if i'm paying postage for a few tins of soft drink. |
You're kidding right? Wow this really is the land of milk and honey and Dew.
Nope not kidding, Mountain Dew appeared a few years ago and just didn't sell very well and it dissappeared as quickly as it turned up. Nowadays i just get by on Irn Bru and Tizer.
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup) |
| similarly nowhere in the Rules, as Written, does it say that the background count is aspected towards the cyberzombie. Unless i've missed something, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? (i don't have a copy of street magic on me at the moment) |
I believe it stated such in Augmentation (where the CZ rules are located).
Trying to find the copy I normally have on my thumbdrive. I might not be able to quote the relevant section until I get home though since I know my home PC has it in my SR Ebook folder.
Look to pages 157-158 of Aug. This astral haze affects all (emphasis mine) attempts to cast magic on, at, or in the vicinity of
the cyberzombie.
Ya I just reread the entire CZ rules for that. Bleh I hate doing that kinda thing. I don't do rules. I'm going to bed, have fun with that.
the cyberzombie.
Ya I just reread the entire CZ rules for that. Bleh I hate doing that kinda thing. I don't do rules. I'm going to bed, have fun with that.
Unfortunately, thus far it only says that the cyberzombie "becomes a domain in their own right" and says nothing about the background count being aspected towards the cyberzombie. However, what being a domain in "their own right" means will soon become apparent to me as soon as i get my beady little eyes into a copy of street magic. which should happen in about ten minutes time, once my friend has uploaded my .pdf copy to me at work from home.
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup @ Sep 12 2007, 08:29 PM) |
| It does not say you gain access to magic or metamagic especially when you consider that a cyberzombie is a walking background count of 4 which makes using magic almost bloody pointless whilst a cyberzombie anyway. Similarly never does it say anywhere that they awaken except to say that they awaken from stasis (p.156 of augmentation). Also the rules, as written, do not state that a magic user loses access to magic when becoming a cyber zombie and the rules state that their magic attribute is reduced to 1. If we're going by the rules as written, then sure, if you think a cyberzombie can pull off big mojo with a magic rating of one and sitting in a background count of 4 without his head exploding, feel free. Similarly never expect to enter astral space in astral form, you're astral form is forever anchored to your body, undo those bonds and it's good night (as the rules state, they're trapped between this world and the astral plane). However, that does not mean (and the rules, as written, do not say) mundane characters get any access to magic or metamagic as a result of developing a magic attribute of 1. So in actual fact when most people say "It's the RAW" (no toturi, i'm not singleing you out so please don't kick off) a lot of the time they are just seeing what's not written and assuming that because it doesn't say that you can't do something, then you can. By the RAW, it also doesn't say that awakened characters retain access to magic either. So the whole thing is rather ambiguous really, when just seeing it as the rules as written, isn't it? So, who wants to argue with the rules as written? Because they don't have any concrete answers when taken at face value as far as i can see. |
I do not think anyone is claiming that a non-Magician/Mystic Adept cyberzombie could use magical skills in the first place. If someone did do that, please point him out and I will e-smite the non-canon heretic.
RAW never says awakened characters retain or ever had access to magic. Your point is moot.
Actually you are only reading part of the rules. Read SR4 p 77, 79 and 164. What it does say is that "if a character's Magic is reduced to 0, ... has 'burned out', losing all magical ability, and becoming a mundane forever." The cyberzombie never has had its Magic reduced to 0 and it still has the Magician/Mystic Adept/Adept quality and it is these qualities that enable the cyberzombie to make use of the appropriate skills/abilities. If the poor awakened bugger had only Astral Sight/Spell or Spirit Knack, then the poor slob is still limited by the limits these qualities impose. So please read all of the rules before you want to argue RAW. What you are doing reminds me of the 3 blind men trying to describe an elephant.
| QUOTE |
| similarly nowhere in the Rules, as Written, does it say that the background count is aspected towards the cyberzombie. Unless i've missed something, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? |
Domains are by definition aspected towards something. Sure, you can argue that the domain that is the cyberzombie is aspected towards something else because it doesn't explicitly state so. But hey, if the domain is aspect towards anything else but the CZ, its Magic would be reduced by the Background Count and it means the cyberzombie is dead. GG, goodbye, sayonara, hasta la vista, baby. Because "if the Magic attribute is ever reduced to 0 by other(non-implantation) means, the cyberzombie dies." So yes, if you want to argue it that, sure... then the cyberzombie is dead.
| QUOTE (toturi @ Sep 12 2007, 09:19 AM) |
| Domains are by definition aspected towards something. Sure, you can argue that the domain that is the cyberzombie is aspected towards something else because it doesn't explicitly state so. But hey, if the domain is aspect towards anything else but the CZ, its Magic would be reduced by the Background Count and it means the cyberzombie is dead. GG, goodbye, sayonara, hasta la vista, baby. Because "if the Magic attribute is ever reduced to 0 by other(non-implantation) means, the cyberzombie dies." So yes, if you want to argue it that, sure... then the cyberzombie is dead. |
Actually per Synner, that is untrue. A mana warp / void would only suppress the active use of the magic attribute, not permanently reduce it.
This is shown to be true because once you leave a warp/void, your magic returns to its normal value.
In essence, it only reduces the Effective Rating rather than the permanent Rating. For a Cyberzombie to die due to Magic Loss, he'd have to get Permanently reduced to 0.
*stupid typos*
Oddly enough, i am reading all the rules, i've just been addressing things as they have come up. I'm just pointing out how the Rules As Written™ may not be as clear cut as some people seem to think they are.
The background count, whilst being a domain, is, as far as i can see not aspected (according to the Rules as Written, as it gives no aspect) and therefore it prohibits magic by anyone in the area (the only real aspect it could have would be a corrupt one, so even if it were possible, and bear in mind that it is not said anywhere in the Rules as Written, it would only suite toxic shamans and their ilk) the Background Count rules in street magic (p118) state that for every point of background count you have, reduce the Magic users magic attribute by that many points. If it hits 0, then you cannot perform magic at all whilst within the affected area. So even if you knew how to conjure and how to use sorcery and knew every spell known to mankind, you couldn't use them as a cyberzombie, sitting in the middle of a background count of four, with only one point of magic nets you an effective magic of minus three, even though you are still technically at a magic attribute of 1. As it isn't an actual reduction of magic, only an effective reduction whilst within an area of background count, the cyberzombie doesn't immediately fall dead. Otherwise every magician with a magic of four would burn out immediately as soon as they got within range.
Similarly background counts effect foci as well, reducing their effective force by that amount, so if you were to bind a weapon focus you would need to have at least a force 5 weapon focus for it be any use.
So, the Rules As Written, state that you cannot use magic in any shape or form as a cyberzombie unless, and it's a GM call, the domain of the background count is in tune with your tradition. So it's possible, however unlikely, that you could use magic as a cyberzombie (but only if the GM decides to actually come up with something outside the Rules As Written) and wield a weapon focus of force five or higher using the rules as written.
That's as good as you're going to get it without getting a developer to tell us how they wanted it work in the first place. I suspect an errata maybe in the offering somewhere along the line.
Toturi, if no one was claiming that Cyberzombies could do any of this, what was the point of this thread? Also i believe NightmareX wandered off with the idea that the full plethora of magic was still available to Cyberzombies which i believe started this whole current running battle in the first place (not intentionally i might add).
As to your comment about blind people describing elephants, a perfectly sighted man couldn't do the same if they won't step back to look at the whole thing either.
The background count, whilst being a domain, is, as far as i can see not aspected (according to the Rules as Written, as it gives no aspect) and therefore it prohibits magic by anyone in the area (the only real aspect it could have would be a corrupt one, so even if it were possible, and bear in mind that it is not said anywhere in the Rules as Written, it would only suite toxic shamans and their ilk) the Background Count rules in street magic (p118) state that for every point of background count you have, reduce the Magic users magic attribute by that many points. If it hits 0, then you cannot perform magic at all whilst within the affected area. So even if you knew how to conjure and how to use sorcery and knew every spell known to mankind, you couldn't use them as a cyberzombie, sitting in the middle of a background count of four, with only one point of magic nets you an effective magic of minus three, even though you are still technically at a magic attribute of 1. As it isn't an actual reduction of magic, only an effective reduction whilst within an area of background count, the cyberzombie doesn't immediately fall dead. Otherwise every magician with a magic of four would burn out immediately as soon as they got within range.
Similarly background counts effect foci as well, reducing their effective force by that amount, so if you were to bind a weapon focus you would need to have at least a force 5 weapon focus for it be any use.
So, the Rules As Written, state that you cannot use magic in any shape or form as a cyberzombie unless, and it's a GM call, the domain of the background count is in tune with your tradition. So it's possible, however unlikely, that you could use magic as a cyberzombie (but only if the GM decides to actually come up with something outside the Rules As Written) and wield a weapon focus of force five or higher using the rules as written.
That's as good as you're going to get it without getting a developer to tell us how they wanted it work in the first place. I suspect an errata maybe in the offering somewhere along the line.
Toturi, if no one was claiming that Cyberzombies could do any of this, what was the point of this thread? Also i believe NightmareX wandered off with the idea that the full plethora of magic was still available to Cyberzombies which i believe started this whole current running battle in the first place (not intentionally i might add).
As to your comment about blind people describing elephants, a perfectly sighted man couldn't do the same if they won't step back to look at the whole thing either.
| QUOTE (darthmord) | ||
Actually per Synner, that is untrue. A mana warp / void would only suppress the active use of the magic attribute, not permanently reduce it. This is shown to be true because once you leave a warp/void, your magic returns to its normal value. In essence, it only reduces the Effective Rating rather than the permanent Rating. For a Cyberzombie to die due to Magic Loss, he'd have to get Permanently reduced to 0. *stupid typos* |
Could I trouble you for a quote or a link on that?
The Rules As Written™ states that the magic loss is only for as long as the magic user is in the effected area of the background count (p118 of street magic). Therefore it's a temporary loss of magic, not a permanent one. If it were otherwise we would have magic users burning out everytime they got too near a big enough background count.
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup @ Sep 12 2007, 10:10 PM) |
| The background count, whilst being a domain, is, as far as i can see not aspected (according to the Rules as Written, as it gives no aspect) and therefore it prohibits magic by anyone in the area (the only real aspect it could have would be a corrupt one, so even if it were possible, and bear in mind that it is not said anywhere in the Rules as Written, it would only suite toxic shamans and their ilk) the Background Count rules in street magic (p118) state that for every point of background count you have, reduce the Magic users magic attribute by that many points. If it hits 0, then you cannot perform magic at all whilst within the affected area. So even if you knew how to conjure and how to use sorcery and knew every spell known to mankind, you couldn't use them as a cyberzombie, sitting in the middle of a background count of four, with only one point of magic nets you an effective magic of minus three, even though you are still technically at a magic attribute of 1. As it isn't an actual reduction of magic, only an effective reduction whilst within an area of background count, the cyberzombie doesn't immediately fall dead. Otherwise every magician with a magic of four would burn out immediately as soon as they got within range. Similarly background counts effect foci as well, reducing their effective force by that amount, so if you were to bind a weapon focus you would need to have at least a force 5 weapon focus for it be any use. So, the Rules As Written, state that you cannot use magic in any shape or form as a cyberzombie unless, and it's a GM call, the domain of the background count is in tune with your tradition. So it's possible, however unlikely, that you could use magic as a cyberzombie (but only if the GM decides to actually come up with something outside the Rules As Written) and wield a weapon focus of force five or higher using the rules as written. That's as good as you're going to get it without getting a developer to tell us how they wanted it work in the first place. I suspect an errata maybe in the offering somewhere along the line. Toturi, if no one was claiming that Cyberzombies could do any of this, what was the point of this thread? Also i believe NightmareX wandered off with the idea that the full plethora of magic was still available to Cyberzombies which i believe started this whole current running battle in the first place (not intentionally i might add). As to your comment about blind people describing elephants, a perfectly sighted man couldn't do the same if they won't step back to look at the whole thing either. |
| QUOTE |
| By its nature, the background count in a domain is aspected. |
Not aspected? Sure, if you house rule it so.
The background is aspected. But what is it aspected to? Yes, it is not explicitly stated. It doesn't state that it is not aspected to the CZ but neither does it state it is aspected to the CZ. Sure as long as the GM rules that it is not aspected(only if the GM decides to actually come up with something outside the Rules As Written), then you can't.
So, the Rules As Written, state that you can use magic in any shape or form as a cyberzombie unless, and it's a GM call, the domain of the background count is not in tune with your tradition.
Either way he rules, it will not be RAW. Which begs the question: Can a domain be aspected towards something that isn't its tradition? Can you be aspected to not-you?
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup) |
| The Rules As Written™ states that the magic loss is only for as long as the magic user is in the effected area of the background count (p118 of street magic). Therefore it's a temporary loss of magic, not a permanent one. If it were otherwise we would have magic users burning out everytime they got too near a big enough background count. |
True, but the Dual Nature rules don't differentiate between "effective" and "permanent". In fact, going strictly by the letter, "other means" could also mean temporary means. Which is why I want that quote, so that temporary reductions is excluded from "other means".
Temporary magic loss will still kill people who require a constant magical effect to live.
If you swim into a deep underwater background count while sustaining Oxygenate and have your Magic virtually reduced to zero as a result, you won't burn out but you'll still drown.
The Cyberzombie's soul cage is a magical effect powered by the cyberzombie's magic rating in SR4. If that magic rating is reduced to 0 then the Soul Cage fails. If the Soul Cage fails then death is instant. It doesn't matter if it is temperory or permanent, the thing that makes the cyberzombie live escapes and cannot be put back in no matter how hard anyone tries.
Therefore, we must assume that the cyberzombie's background count doesn't reduce its magic rating, because if it did all cyberzombies would die at the instant of their creation.
If you swim into a deep underwater background count while sustaining Oxygenate and have your Magic virtually reduced to zero as a result, you won't burn out but you'll still drown.
The Cyberzombie's soul cage is a magical effect powered by the cyberzombie's magic rating in SR4. If that magic rating is reduced to 0 then the Soul Cage fails. If the Soul Cage fails then death is instant. It doesn't matter if it is temperory or permanent, the thing that makes the cyberzombie live escapes and cannot be put back in no matter how hard anyone tries.
Therefore, we must assume that the cyberzombie's background count doesn't reduce its magic rating, because if it did all cyberzombies would die at the instant of their creation.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Temporary magic loss will still kill people who require a constant magical effect to live. If you swim into a deep underwater background count while sustaining Oxygenate and have your Magic virtually reduced to zero as a result, you won't burn out but you'll still drown. The Cyberzombie's soul cage is a magical effect powered by the cyberzombie's magic rating in SR4. If that magic rating is reduced to 0 then the Soul Cage fails. If the Soul Cage fails then death is instant. It doesn't matter if it is temperory or permanent, the thing that makes the cyberzombie live escapes and cannot be put back in no matter how hard anyone tries. Therefore, we must assume that the cyberzombie's background count doesn't reduce its magic rating, because if it did all cyberzombies would die at the instant of their creation. |
They are claiming that Peter said so(kind of like Rob the god said so, except, it's "St." Peter said so now
)
Try this link: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...&hl=void&st=100
Scroll about 1/2 way down and read the exchanges between Rotbart, Frank, and Synner.
Scroll about 1/2 way down and read the exchanges between Rotbart, Frank, and Synner.
The keyword is "permanently" reduce Magic to 0. Call it a houserule if you want (and hopefully Synner will update the errata during our lifetimes) but that kills the confusion about magical beings blundering into background count areas. Only spirits get disrupted by background count.
I can't remember all the ways to permanently reduce magic, but I think it was just essence drain and focus addiction burnout.
I can't remember all the ways to permanently reduce magic, but I think it was just essence drain and focus addiction burnout.
| QUOTE (Mr. Croup) |
| I'm just pointing out how the Rules As Written™ may not be as clear cut as some people seem to think they are. |
That is painfully apparent to everyone I think. And yet some people would rather make a big deal about use of abbreviations on an informal forum
| QUOTE |
| Also i believe NightmareX wandered off with the idea that the full plethora of magic was still available to Cyberzombies |
Ish? The idea of which I find highly distasteful to say the least. Thank you for mentioning the astral hazing though - it mitigates the idea somewhat and I had forgotten it.
| QUOTE (NightmareX @ Sep 10 2007, 06:42 AM) |
Ah, you're right both - my apologies, only skimmed the cybermancy section as of yet (reading cover to cover). So logically cyberzombie magicians/whatnot can still cast/conjure/have adept powers. Damn that's weird  I wonder why the devs made this change? |
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound harsh but i was referring to this post that you made earlier in the thread..
[edit]d'oh! Sorry, i normally post as Mr. Croup, but i found my old login and forgot to log off when i left work yesterday![/edit]
*jumps out of phone booth after hasty change of clothes*
There we go, that's much better.
There we go, that's much better.
| QUOTE (Feyd 47) |
| Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound harsh but i was referring to this post that you made earlier in the thread.. [edit]d'oh! Sorry, i normally post as Mr. Croup, but i found my old login and forgot to log off when i left work yesterday![/edit] |
No prob
it wasn't you or Draconis I was referring to, as you both only mentioned such once in passing (which I don't count as making a big deal).
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| The keyword is "permanently" reduce Magic to 0. Call it a houserule if you want (and hopefully Synner will update the errata during our lifetimes) but that kills the confusion about magical beings blundering into background count areas. Only spirits get disrupted by background count. I can't remember all the ways to permanently reduce magic, but I think it was just essence drain and focus addiction burnout. |
Augmentation>Diseases>MADS
Read up on that. It'll eat your Magic Rating.
Essence Drain will do it too.
Apparently there is yet another way that will do it but it was never published. It should be included in Running Wild (per Synner).
Hmm - if we rule that any temorary loss would kill the CZ, then the background count in the operating theatre should off the budding CZ (I can't imagine that a location that regularily performs cybersurgery won't have a background count) - or at least, the first background count he encounters.
BUT - if his magic is in fact reduced, why mention it at all? It's NOT THERE since he's in a rating 4 domain. Or maybe it was 5 and was reduced to 1? What happens to a dual being who has his/her magic rating reduced to 0? The domain rating affects spirits, disrupting them if it reduces force below 1 - isn't the cyberzombie's SPIRIT linked to it's body by magical means?
However, for arguments sake - let's say that the domain is not aspected toward the CZ, and thus reduces it's magic to 0, yet it doesn't kill it. A sufficiently skilled initiate could aspect that domain toward the CZ's tradition, and then it can resume casting/conjuring/using powers/binding foci. Nothing in the RAW contradicts that, if the CZ was a magician or adept to begin with, does it?
It's still limited to being Initiate Grade 1 and a maximum of 2 Metamagics, but a Power Focus could make into a serious magical threat, and a Weapon Focus could ensure even greater physical 133T-ness and lethalness.
The only way to prevent them from using magic skills, RAW-wise, is to say that the cybermancy-process does reduce any magic they have to 0 (although that can be tough to claim if it's original magic is greater than 6+negative Essence).
Personally, I kinda like the fact that they opened for CZs to have magic - after all, canon does support it with the Lethe-Burnout monstrosity roaming the metaplanes...
BUT - if his magic is in fact reduced, why mention it at all? It's NOT THERE since he's in a rating 4 domain. Or maybe it was 5 and was reduced to 1? What happens to a dual being who has his/her magic rating reduced to 0? The domain rating affects spirits, disrupting them if it reduces force below 1 - isn't the cyberzombie's SPIRIT linked to it's body by magical means?
However, for arguments sake - let's say that the domain is not aspected toward the CZ, and thus reduces it's magic to 0, yet it doesn't kill it. A sufficiently skilled initiate could aspect that domain toward the CZ's tradition, and then it can resume casting/conjuring/using powers/binding foci. Nothing in the RAW contradicts that, if the CZ was a magician or adept to begin with, does it?
It's still limited to being Initiate Grade 1 and a maximum of 2 Metamagics, but a Power Focus could make into a serious magical threat, and a Weapon Focus could ensure even greater physical 133T-ness and lethalness.
The only way to prevent them from using magic skills, RAW-wise, is to say that the cybermancy-process does reduce any magic they have to 0 (although that can be tough to claim if it's original magic is greater than 6+negative Essence).
Personally, I kinda like the fact that they opened for CZs to have magic - after all, canon does support it with the Lethe-Burnout monstrosity roaming the metaplanes...
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| However, for arguments sake - let's say that the domain is not aspected toward the CZ, and thus reduces it's magic to 0, yet it doesn't kill it. A sufficiently skilled initiate could aspect that domain toward the CZ's tradition, and then it can resume casting/conjuring/using powers/binding foci. Nothing in the RAW contradicts that, if the CZ was a magician or adept to begin with, does it? |
Except that you normally aspect places and not people. Of course most people aren't walking domains so the jury's out on that one. No way in hell I'd allow it though. That's getting on the express bus to crazytown. Not only is the CZ not taking the four dice hit anymore and getting a four dice bonus instead, the mage and anyone of his tradition just got a walking force four power focus with a damn radius for essentially free. They're going to do what they where going to do anyway, stand behind the tank. That's just sick. Look ma I have my own pet mobile domain.
| QUOTE (Draconis) |
| Except that you normally aspect places and not people. Of course most people aren't walking domains so the jury's out on that one. No way in hell I'd allow it though. That's getting on the express bus to crazytown. Not only is the CZ not taking the four dice hit anymore and getting a four dice bonus instead, the mage and anyone of his tradition just got a walking force four power focus with a damn radius for essentially free. They're going to do what they where going to do anyway, stand behind the tank. That's just sick. Look ma I have my own pet mobile domain. |
You don't get it, do you? The cyberzombie is a domain, it means the background count it creates is aspected. It means a magician/mystic adept of the appropriate tradition will get more dice. Even if you do rule that the cyberzombie's domain isn't aspected towards itself(which begs the question: can a domain not be aspected towards itself?), somewhere there is a tradition that can make use of the cyberzombie's background count - "look ma, I have my own pet mobile domain" is precisely the point with a cyberzombie. If they wanted the background count to screw with everybody, then they should have left it precisely as background count. Geomancy aspects domains, the cyberzombie is a domain. The domain can be aspected towards the cyberzombie if it initially wasn't. You can house rule it that it can't be re-aspected or that it doesn't give more dice, etc, but that's a house rule.
Heh someone's testy tonight. Decaf man.
I don't have to debate shit with your ass. If that's the case that's the case. Doesn't mean i'll use it that way. Some of us don't have such a big hard on for the rules as written. Hell isn't it obvious that the guys who actually put those rules in your precious book don't even like how they turn out at times? I'll just discuss it with the guy who wrote the rules in person. You get so much more than what's on the page.
I don't have to debate shit with your ass. If that's the case that's the case. Doesn't mean i'll use it that way. Some of us don't have such a big hard on for the rules as written. Hell isn't it obvious that the guys who actually put those rules in your precious book don't even like how they turn out at times? I'll just discuss it with the guy who wrote the rules in person. You get so much more than what's on the page.
| QUOTE (Draconis) |
| Heh someone's testy tonight. Decaf man. I don't have to debate shit with your ass. If that's the case that's the case. Doesn't mean i'll use it that way. Some of us don't have such a big hard on for the rules as written. Hell isn't it obvious that the guys who actually put those rules in your precious book don't even like how they turn out at times? I'll just discuss it with the guy who wrote the rules in person. You get so much more than what's on the page. |
Heh someone's testy today.
You do not need to debate shit with my ass. But if you want to talk to my ass, be my guest. If the writers want to change anything, they could put in an errata or state their intention on the FAQ. But hey, it doesn't mean you'll use it that way, right? The writers who put the rules in the book don't need to like them, they just have to write them. You want writers' intent, sure, ask them. If they miswrote, they can clarify. In the end, only what is on the page counts, else you can be debating shit with my ass, for all I care.
You know the fun thing about extremism is it tends to be pretty obvious. I don't really need to say more but I feel the need to clarify. You realize of course I didn't state my opinion as some kind of gospel? As a matter of fact I had mentioned I was going to query the source further for insight as the entire issue directly relates to our group. I merely illustrate potential problems that will arise if you take it that way. But feel free, even if that is the rules as written, and I'm not saying they are, see the clarification part. If you want CZs with a gaggle of toxics or some such riding shotgun behind em go for it. Just don't be surprised at the results.
I'll take intent over RAW any day of the week. If the rules where always right, and they seldom are, then why does there have to be errata and revisions? I guess you must be enjoying Technomancers immensily at the moment. Have fun with that.
I dislike the brand of intellectual egotism that the board breeds. The gotcha BS.
I'll leave that to Frank he's always enjoyed that kind of thing. I just don't get it myself.
I'll take intent over RAW any day of the week. If the rules where always right, and they seldom are, then why does there have to be errata and revisions? I guess you must be enjoying Technomancers immensily at the moment. Have fun with that.
I dislike the brand of intellectual egotism that the board breeds. The gotcha BS.
I'll leave that to Frank he's always enjoyed that kind of thing. I just don't get it myself.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| You don't get it, do you? The cyberzombie is a domain, it means the background count it creates is aspected. |
First, not all domains are aspected. For instance, the domain created by a murder is not aspected to any given tradition unless that is changed via Geomancy,
Second, the domain created by a cyberzombie is an anomaly, a mobile domain. The closest thing to that is the effects of an Astral Static spell, which IIRC cannot be aspected via Geomancy. On that basis alone, I would suspect that Geomancy would not be able to aspect a cyberzombie's astral haze.
Third, it is doubtful that the intention was that the cyberzombie's astral haze would be a domain in the proper sense of the term (note the use of the words "in effect", which would tend to imply a "virtual" domain of sorts):
Augmention page 158
In effect, the cyberzombie becomes a domain in her own
right, tainting astral space around her wherever she goes. This astral
haze affects all attempts to cast magic on, at, or in the vicinity of
the cyberzombie.
And lastly, note that all magic is stated to be impeded by the cyberzombie's astral haze.
| QUOTE (Draconis) |
| I dislike the brand of intellectual egotism that the board breeds. The gotcha BS. |
It is getting rather old.
| QUOTE (NightmareX @ Sep 14 2007, 02:25 PM) | ||
First, not all domains are aspected. For instance, the domain created by a murder is not aspected to any given tradition unless that is changed via Geomancy, Second, the domain created by a cyberzombie is an anomaly, a mobile domain. The closest thing to that is the effects of an Astral Static spell, which IIRC cannot be aspected via Geomancy. On that basis alone, I would suspect that Geomancy would not be able to aspect a cyberzombie's astral haze. Third, it is doubtful that the intention was that the cyberzombie's astral haze would be a domain in the proper sense of the term (note the use of the words "in effect", which would tend to imply a "virtual" domain of sorts): |
| QUOTE |
| By its nature, the background count in a domain is aspected. |
If the cyberzombie "domain" is not a true domain in that it has no aspect, then I'd would differ to the writers. Mana static does not create a domain, it creates background count. A place with background count is not always a domain. But a domain always has an aspected background count.
| QUOTE |
| This astral haze affects all attempts to cast magic on, at, or in the vicinity of the cyberzombie. |
It affects attempts, not it impedes attempts. The effect of the astral haze may be positive.
It is doubtful that the intention was that the cyberzombie's astral haze would not be a domain in the proper sense of the term because if that were so then there would have been an explanation of the virtual nature of such. Without this explanation, we would not know the difference between such a virtual domain and a true domain. My own view is that the difference between "domain-in-effect" and "domain" in this case would be that the "in effect" refers to the mobile nature of the domain and that it is size is not always constant. However what precisely constitutes "domain-in-effect" and the difference with "domain" is up to the writers.
As I said before, by the very nature of the rules, although it does not make it explicitly so, the CZ is a GM construct.
Affects all attempts...it doesn't say that it has to be a negative effect. A bonus affects the attempt as well, so that can't be used to 'prove' the domain is aspected against all types of casting.
I do say that the rules as written do not make perfect sense without a clarification.
Personally, I'll gladly open up the can of worms thatis magically active cyberzombies - if nothing else to surprise the hell out of my players.
I do say that the rules as written do not make perfect sense without a clarification.
Personally, I'll gladly open up the can of worms thatis magically active cyberzombies - if nothing else to surprise the hell out of my players.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| As I said before, by the very nature of the rules, although it does not make it explicitly so, the CZ is a GM construct. |
Most definitely. And I'm certainly glad they left that consistent
| QUOTE |
| BUT - if his magic is in fact reduced, why mention it at all? |
Because I was operating from the actual rules, and Synner is operating from the way he thinks the rules ought to be.
But hey, he's a line edittor and I'm out of the business, so if he wants to change the rules with errata to say something else, that's his business and I can't stop him.
---
The wording on Cyberzmbies was precisely matched to the way the rules existed to make what I wanted to happen, happen. For example:
- You can't get further cyberware without also going through a new cybermancy ritual, because if your Essence dropped "normally", you'd lose a Magic rating and die.
- Cyberzombies are not killed or rendered "non-astrally active" by exposure to high background counts because their own background count specifically overrides any background count in place.
Peter told me straight up that he didn't think that a Mana Void kept you from astrally perceiving - which leads me to believe that he never actually understood what it was that the background count rules in 4th edition do. They lower your magic attribute, a character with a Magic of zero can't astrally perceive. End of fucking story.
---
For the record, I actually support the current Background Count rules, with the exception that I believe that the numbers involved are far too large. I said that at the time, and I still believe it today. I don't think that either the chapter author or the editor actually fully understood that a Rating 4 Mana Ebb actually prevents any possible starting character from casting spells or summoning spirits.
Magic of 6 (reduced to 2), can now overcast to Force 4 (reduced to 0). I suggested starting Mana Voids and Storms at Rating 4 or 5 rather than 7. But hey, that's water under the bridge.
-Frank
I played around with this concept when aug came out, and let me tell you, it hardly matters beyond style points. A cyberzombie adept can only have rating 1 powers. A cyberzombie mage cannot cast a spell beyond force 2, and even that is overcasting.
Now a cyberzombie makes a hell of a negamage, because his ability to provide counterspelling is much less inhibited.
Now a cyberzombie makes a hell of a negamage, because his ability to provide counterspelling is much less inhibited.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| Now a cyberzombie makes a hell of a negamage, because his ability to provide counterspelling is much less inhibited. |
Correct. A magician cyberzombie is probably going to dish out the hurt with his mundane weapons. Direct combat spells can still be counterspelled away, indrect combat spells can simply be dodged/soaked like mundane weapons. It makes a cyberzombie an incredibly tough target.
About the only magical things a Cyberzombie Mage will ever be good at are Counterspelling and Banishing. You can still accomplish things with your binding skill, just not by conjuring your own crap. You banish other people's spirits while they are inside your miasma and then Pokemon them.
Banishing isn't capped by your Magic, and even if it was you could still bind a spirit with a real Force of 6 (and fairly easily at that) so long as the spirit never left the tainted ground you walk on.
-Frank
Banishing isn't capped by your Magic, and even if it was you could still bind a spirit with a real Force of 6 (and fairly easily at that) so long as the spirit never left the tainted ground you walk on.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| About the only magical things a Cyberzombie Mage will ever be good at are Counterspelling and Banishing. You can still accomplish things with your binding skill, just not by conjuring your own crap. You banish other people's spirits while they are inside your miasma and then Pokemon them. Banishing isn't capped by your Magic, and even if it was you could still bind a spirit with a real Force of 6 (and fairly easily at that) so long as the spirit never left the tainted ground you walk on. -Frank |
not to mention the possibilities when it comes to free spirits...
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| I don't think that either the chapter author or the editor actually fully understood that a Rating 4 Mana Ebb actually prevents any possible starting character from casting spells or summoning spirits. Magic of 6 (reduced to 2), can now overcast to Force 4 (reduced to 0). I suggested starting Mana Voids and Storms at Rating 4 or 5 rather than 7. But hey, that's water under the bridge. -Frank |
Well obviously I haven't been using background count enough, but that particular double-jeopardy hadn't occurred to me.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Sep 17 2007, 11:13 AM) | ||
Well obviously I haven't been using background count enough, but that particular double-jeopardy hadn't occurred to me. |
Daaamn... I'm usually on top of my magical game, but I never even considered that little facet. That would be painful to say the least.
There's one other thing: Nothing prevents a cyber-zombie mage from initiating. Sure, no increase in magic, but metamagic techs are wide open.
And if the cyberzombie hage has an ally spirit....
And if the cyberzombie hage has an ally spirit....
... he's gonna dikote it asap! 
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| There's one other thing: Nothing prevents a cyber-zombie mage from initiating. Sure, no increase in magic, but metamagic techs are wide open. And if the cyberzombie hage has an ally spirit.... |
Well, he could only take one grade (or is it two?) of Initiation at the most. If he wanted an Ally, then he'd have to get that Metamagic.
Initiation Grade cannot exceed Magic Attribute. Don't remember the page from the SM Hymnal.
For a one off CZ NPC, you could GM it to have a Magic greater than 1... just to make a truly memorable...
Then again, I can be an evil and sadistic bastard when the occasion calls for it.
For a one off CZ NPC, you could GM it to have a Magic greater than 1... just to make a truly memorable...
Then again, I can be an evil and sadistic bastard when the occasion calls for it.
the cyberzombie could have 2 metamagic techniques actually... 1 from initiating, 1 from buying a metamagic technique separate from initiating.
of course, if the cyberzombie had the ally spirit metamagic, he'd probably be much better off loading someone else with as much cyber as he can, then causing his ally to inhabit them.
of course, if the cyberzombie had the ally spirit metamagic, he'd probably be much better off loading someone else with as much cyber as he can, then causing his ally to inhabit them.
Since a Cyberzombie can't summon anything bigger than a Force 2 Ally spirit, I regard the two paths to power as being largely incompatible.
-Frank
-Frank
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.