Actually, if you read back through the thread, you'll notice many occasions where my points go unaddressed. Usually where Cain has accused me of a logical fallacy which I then demonstrated that I didn't commit. As Cain earlier said (page 14 for those that doubt):

I'm going to take anything that Cain hasn't addressed as his assent.

If that were true, this thread would be two pages shorter.

Indeed. A more enlightening way of putting it would be to say that Cain is now switching the argument over to the batplane. And I think we all know why.

My arguments are clearly put and unlike others, I don't feel like resorting to repetition to make people accept them. That leaves me only with pithy comments, I'm afraid. So enjoy!

-K.

I'm actually not responsible for the topic shift. Perfectly ordinary thread drift is doing it. I'll be glad to keep debating the Citymaster if anyone's interested; but I think the Batplane is a more interesting example.

Um, no. YOU brought up Batman. YOU used it as an example of Edge. YOU responded to my thematic analysis of a scene in Batman which had no mention of anything to do with Shadowrun as somehow (still haven't worked out how) a comment on your Citymaster example and YOU said that the Citymaster example was now becoming the Batplane example.

The fascinating trial of Caine vs. Reality will continue after these messages...

Oh certainly you're receiving counter-arguments on the subject of the Batplane. But those counter-arguments consist of people saying it's a bad comparison to your Citymaster example. It hasn't reopened the subject of the Called Shot rules.

I think the only thing left open at this point, is the discussion about the role of the gamesmaster.

EDIT: I mean it this time - the thread has reached 21 pages and I must have written volumes. I am absolutely done here. Sorry.

Not reading someone's posts is not the same as the posts not existing.

However, since you seem so blindly set on ignorance (not to mention changing the subject while under serious attack... I mean, tactical withdrawl...)

Shooting a passenger in a vehicle means that the passenger uses the 'Cover' rules, thus shooting them requires that you bypass cover, not armor. This requires penetrating a barrier, which you can not simply handwave away by declaring the barrier a 'penalty' due to 'called shots'.

This of course particularly matters if the barrier is 'total cover', or whatever the technical term is, as any sensible person would agree a completely enclosed armored vehicle IS. Now, this may be an 'appeal to common sense', and thus a logical fallacy, but as has been pointed out earlier (by Knasser I believe) simply calling my argument fallacious does not, in fact render it without value, as demonstrated by the 2+2=5 example earlier in the thread.

Undoubtedly you have chosen to not read those posts either, but since you haven't felt the need to declare such, I must simply guess.

Frank did it better, but I'm too lazy to go copy the relevant portions of his posts, and you'd just 'not read them' anyway because it's Frank.

No. You pretty much ignored what I have written, and voluntarily misinterpreted some. Knasser demonstrated that you make "facts" up, as did I.

Most of the things you write are valid only as your opinion or your perception, but logically they are a failure. Longshot tests do not care for the size of the negative dicepool, that is simply true. No example needed.

Yet you manage to heat tempers up by choosing offensive wording ("horribly broken") and out-there examples (The citymaster). If that is not intentional, you need to learn from Franks posts that not all arguments need to be logical in nature. Your problem with the way the rules work is emotional, and your examples will only appeal to common sense, once they work.


In order to avoid angering a mod, this shall be my last post in this thread.

Perhaps drift was meant on the scale of continental drift?