So where are these 'sound arguments'?
All I see happening is people stop responding because your arguments are shit and you insult them, hence they feel it is pointless to react...
If you feel you won the argument because someone started ignoring you...
Well...
Good luck...

Yes, there are multiple ways to read things. There are also numerous examples where there are bad and broken systems in the rules, which should be errataed/corrected. However, one could use your non-absurd readings to say that it doesn't matter that the rules allow it, you just shouldn't let it.

An example: The rules do not put a limit on the rating for a bow. This results in all bows being the same availability, with vastly different damage potentials, limited only by a characters ability to use the bows (strength). Does it say that bow's rating 30 exist or are possible to get? No, but does it say that bows do not exist over say, rating 12? No.

You might argue that bows are not broken, because any reasonable person would limit the rating of a bow. I argue that it is such a fundamental part of the rules for bows, that if a limit is supposed to exist, it should be in the rulebook. Not expected to be made arbitrarily by whoever happens to be running the game.

See,im sort of taking a neutral ground here, like i tend to always do, being the wussy fence-sitter that i am.

On one hand, i don't necessarily agree with the rampant nerf-batting that does seem to go on around here. I can voice my opinion about it, and once in awhile, someone sees a point and might agree. But if they don't it's cool. I always say the number 1 thing with the game is that it's fun for everyone at the table. If nerfbatting a bunch of rules makes the game more fun for one table, awesome! It wouldn't for mine, but that's awesome too, because both tables are having fun.

Now, i admit sometimes i see arguements that just run in circles forever and don't have much point. But i do like myself a bit of rules debate too. One example(its offtopic of the thread but im trying to at least extinguish some flames here) : How some people houserule skills to have a max hit cap of skill +1. Im not into this idea. I don't think someone with a 7 should be capped at 8 hits, being world class, and i don't think that low skills should weak again like back in SR3(it was really tough to fix anything with a 2 B/R.) But i can understand WHY people like this(because it does solve the problem of Mr. 12 Agility outfighting and outshooting about every world class person there is when he's only got a 1.) However, in my opinion...it's not worth rather heavy-handedly nerfing the lower skill people(you need a FIVE to do anything threshold 4, since you need to hit 1 over the threshold. Anyone should be able to 'get lucky'.), over this...so i don't use that houserule. Again, in some peoples games it's worked fine.

That being said, i have, believe it or not, proposed a couple of house rules that soften things-like the bow. However i do this more because every single other muscle-powered melee or thrown weapon halves strength and adds a modifier. The bow doesn't. Sure it's got some mechanical stuff in there, but for me, a bow sits better being Str/2+2 or even +3(which id have no problem with), which still makes troll bow adepts(or just strong bow adepts) dangerous as hell, and they can still hit like missiles if you stick em with an exploding arrow, but it's no longer essentially the weapon with the MOST potential power. That's the kind of nerf bat i wield sometimes; more like a nerf ball than a bat.

I also considered an adept rule that you weren't allowed more levels of critical strike than you have base, raw, strength-determined DV. This prevents the 98 pound weakling with Strength 1 getting a base DV of 7. However, i havn't implemented this yet...because since it's Magic, and Shadowrun, and crazy stuff happens...it might not be so bad. Maybe that Str. 1 weenie suddenly gets the Blast of Anger and that's his way of showing it. Im still considering if that would make the game more fun. Right now, the latter is pointing to 'no', so i wouldn't implement it. Looking at Critical Strike as more of a 'ki' power, it makes much more sense. But i kicked around the idea for awhile due to it being really weird sounding that Str. 7 guy with 3 levels of Critical Strike did the same DV as Str 1 with 6 levels. But then i realized that the second guy just has more 'ki power' than the first guy, who has more raw strength.

Back on topic, this started by stemming from Riposte doing silly things. Again, after now learning things how it works; it can be hard to abuse if the GM is on it. I mean, like everyone said...7 mooks on the other side. You have your runner team of 4(3, say the hacker is in AR or something). So Mr. Melee in the front gets charged by 3 of the mooks(and actual mooks, 3 agility, 2 pistols/smartlink, 2 unarmed for example). He proceeds to hammer them one right after the other using Riposte. Now, even with Logic/Intuition of around 2/3 they will figure out ''charging Mr. Melee is Bad. Let's hang back, hide and shoot''. IMO, there SHOULD be some times in a game where everyone gets to 'show off' their Big Guns, so to speak. Let Mr. Big Gun Guy with the BFG get to use it once in awhile. Let the dual-pistols wielding Firefight specialist go Grammaton Cleric on some mooks sometimes. And yeah, let Mr. Melee get charged by textbook mooks like a Jackie Chan movie once in a while, so he can really shine. To me, that kinda thing is fun. It doesn't have to be the whole game, but it can be fun.

But i do agree there are many ways to read things; this is where debate comes from. Some things seem cut and dry. It's pretty obvious, IMO, that Finishing Move was not meant to be tied together infinitely. But Riposte? Yeah, it can be used with full defense...but some folks don't think that leads to fun. Me? I like it. But no one is right or wrong here.

Honestly, rules debate is fine as long as it stays away from flames. I never understood how debating rules in a game could get so hot. Again, sure i don't agree with the nerf bats that fly around 95% of the time but they don't affect my game. The only times i end up speaking out with more...power i guess you can say is if i see a GM who is obviously and painfully acting like a tyrant.

That's the thing. People asking the rule book to save them from thinking, to save them from using judgment on how to read things. They read things really literally, come on here and cry about it, and then make some house rules. I don't think that's the best course. The better course is to re-read it and try to figure out an interpretation that isn't broken, then you won't have to deal with the neverending rebalancing problem that house rules create. I understand if people would rather house rule, but the problem I have is how they dig in their claws and stubbornly insist that the insane reading is the only reading, and that Shadowrun SUCKS because it isn't PERFECT and they paid actual MONEY for it! It just gets so overblown, and happens so often, in almost every rules thread, in fact, that it really needs a zealous voice on the other side. If my opponents were more moderate and less stubborn, I probably wouldn't be as forceful. But people on Dumpshock are set in their ways. Almost the only way to make anyone listen to the other side is to be really evocative. And I think it's worked so far...

Shrug. That's kind of funny, because I think it just makes you look like a dick. Different Strokes ...

I suggest that this thread stick to the topic (broad though it may have become) and move away from personal attacks, which I should point out are prohibited by the board rules.

That's quite true. I guess it's a good thing that I (for one) haven't made any. I have been quite precise with the wording of my posts, which is something that you should be well aware of, what with your vaunted reading comprehension skills and all.

What I gather from this is simply: Read the book until we get the meaning that you interpret. The only thing clear in quite a few of the rules in the book is that they are neither concise nor clear.

Take a step or dozen back and realize you have no more authority to deem rules intent as anyone else on this board, save for the devs.

I'm not saying I have special authority. But in every case I can recall, people have agreed on the developer intent. Nobody is arguing here that the devs intended an infinite number of Finishing Moves. That's not my claiming special authority, that's a consensus. On Riposte, the intent is a lot less clear, but allowing unlimited ripostes is not absurd because, as a practical matter, even the best martial artist ever will eventually run out of dice. Nobody has contested this fact, either. Some people, like the original poster, have said "Yeah whatever, I house rule anyway cuz I don't like it!" And I respect that. What I don't respect is people acting on pure preference pretending that they are backed up by unambiguous RAW when the RAW is anything but unambiguous.

You can attack my argument style all you want, but it really doesn't alter the substance of anything I say. I might go overboard sometimes, and this might impede arguments because other people get mad and are unable to respond calmly. I don't mean to do that, though, I just don't want to preface every assertion with "In my opinion, but feel free to disagree," because it's a waste of words and intellectually cowardly.

This has been a fun little thread to follow (since yesterday).

I actually agree with most of what Larme has been saying.

1) Many debates here come from people taking "an interpretation" of a rule and blowing it out to an extreme. We all do it in order to prove whatever point is being made. Many of us read it, laugh a little, and share experience from our own table. I like it, as I have used some of the shared experience to help my table run smoother.

2) The arguments on the forum have a lot of "theoretical" base. Many of us like to make points and counterpoints, just for the sake of it. I'd say that at least 75% of the arguments that get heated, don't actually get argued outside of this forum. I mean, if they did, then no one at the gaming tables would need to roll dice, they'd all just sit there with their books and take turns arguing. And at the gaming table, if one of these "issues" come up, the game doesn't just stop. The GM makes a quick ruling (good or bad) and everyone moves on and keeps playing. But the forums are here to debate those types of things...and oftentimes, good bits and pieces can be collected and put to use in actual play time.

3) Some people need to read things "in their face" and forceful in order for them to register. Most of us have some pretty strong wills and feelings on the game...and that is a good thing. That's why we are all here, reading and posting about a game that we all really like. And sometimes people will complain about the rules or the authors...but they are still here (and hopefully playing the game).

Now while I respect Fortune, the last couple of comments are grey...you didn't call Larme a dick, but you did say "I think it makes you look like a dick" and followed it up with "vaunted reading comprehension skills and all", which is pretty thick with sarcasm... I don't see why either of those comments are necessary. By the rest of the thread, anyone reading it can see you two are wanting to argue each of your points and don't agree with one another. Which is cool, because both of you have brought up some points that will help the rest of us when we need to make a snap judgement at our gaming tables!

Your table may be different than mine, but I know even if a dev ruled or FAQ'd something, if it didn't make sense to me, I wouldn't use it if my players and I felt that our own ruling made sense. So, even if the devs step in, most of the GMs that have a good feel for their players, are simply going to take that under advisement, not gospel.

I'm back, and reading through my posts yesterday I was drawn off of my argument with all the "literal" reading of the rules comments. So let me try again, without being drawn too off track.



Finishing Move would of course be very broken if it was allowed on top of itself, to the end of whatever... My point is Riposte would be no less broken just because of the depleting dodge pool. I don't think that it is right that dodge master 1 IP person is going to be borrowing passes far into the future. It doesn't make sense in the I perform 15 attacks in 3 seconds, and now I'm unable to do anything else for the next 45 seconds. Except that per rules after 3 seconds my defense pool reset (you can houserule this differently if you wish, but this is the way it currently works) and I can again riposte 15 more attacks, and unable to do anything now for the next minute and a half. Its this time shifting that doesn't mesh well. Allowing someone to borrow 3 seconds ahead, thats fine there's a definate limit to their actions, the other way there is no limit, they are becoming some type of extra-dimensional creature working in their own pocket time dimension.

And yes some people will reach that point where they will stand back and shoot. But not all ghouls, critters, spirits, and street gangers carry guns, and in this scenario the riposte will win against all of them. Unless you decide you need to get his melee dice pool down and as a GM you throw 20 of said melee people at them per turn, just so the last 5 might not get Riposte'd.

Fixing a problem by changing the scenario doesn't work. The character created a character with the intent of riposte crazy amount of people, and you don't want him to do it so you shoot him. Thats like saying your face throws too many dice in social tests, so we're going to have him deal with only deaf-mute autistic ghouls. The face isn't having fun now, because there's no part for him.

So being rushed by 20 people per turn isn't realistic unless you're in some ultimate king of the mountain pit fight, and shooting them is just a way of making the character obsolete. Thats why I choose to read it in the borrow 1 action at a time, it stays true to the spirit of the rules more than anything else (from my point of view).

As always YMMV, but I think I've gotten back to the heart of my "deeply rooted" feelings for this system.

More power to you! You think that borrowing an unlimited number of actions is unrealistic, and you want your game to be more realistic, so go ahead. My position is that Action Phases and Combat Turns are already a completely unrealistic metagame, so a little more unrealism can't hurt. The rules are unrealistic in general, and you'll bash your face in trying to fix all the unrealistic aspects. But you're welcome to try

Absolutely deek!
As I have said before, I would rather houserule a concrete, black and white, bookrule that I didn't like rather than quible over inconcise writing and assumed intents.

I admit i take this school of thought.

There are some systems that are more realistic than others. Some systems have been known to be *very* realistic. Shadowrun has dragons flying through the air owning corps and running for president, elves living gazillions of years, and everything BUT but Kung Fu Jesus fighting with Cyber-Disco Hitler in the middle of Zurich Orbital Space Station while magic flies by over their heads in artificial life zones. If i want a realistic system, i'll pick up a realistic system and play a no-holds-barred, extremely realistic game if the mood strikes us.

I guess in other words when I see rules for governing how to deal with Devil Rats and Spirits flying through astral space and armidillos the size of buildings, a player of mine who asks me if he can pull off a few Jackie Chan moves on guys equivalent to Joe and Jim Rent-a-Cop(and Jackie Chan goes into the 'real life adept' pile like i say ), does not sound that bad i really don't see why i should say no.

All THAT being said i think they did a pretty good job with the rules on these. Combat in SR is odd; some things are actually much weaker than real life(firearm firing rates, for example. If they copied them like some of the guns that exist today it would be VERY ugly.) And alot of the weapons are 'weaker' than their real-life counterparts. Im a rather wimpy lass, ill be the first to admit, but if i swung a sword at someone, even with my default agility and my untrained 0 skill, i'd do a hell of a lot more than a couple of boxes of damage.

These 'boosts' almost give the game, IMO, well...a cyberpunk movie qualitiy. Which, well....Shadowrun kind of reminds me of in ways.



And yes, i do this too. We have houserules for things that we didn't like. And then for some things which we just wanted to make simpler(for example, we wanted all Attribute math to be even 10s. So we made maxing out an attribute cost 20 points than 25. Easy and didnt break anything because someone only maxes something about 5% of the time anyway). And sometimes there are just those rules that feel off. The whole 'errate' that Reaction Enhancers work with everything BUT Wired Reflexes rubbed me the wrong way, so i don't use it. WR already cost a crapload of Essence as it is, but yet the RE's work with the technically BETTER stuff but not them? Eh, didn't like it, changed it. No one was hurt and those pesky game police hadn't found me.....yet.

I would just like to throw in that I have no problem with Riposte being allowed to string indefinitely for several reasons.
One, I'm no martial arts master, and neither is my friend(though I must admit he is better than me I've just got massive reach, a lot of strength, I can take hits, and fast reflexes- being a troll helps and yes I'm still talking real life) but when we spar, we hit each other a hell of alot more often than once every 3 seconds. Depending on what we are trying to accomplish and the way the fight is going Riposte and Riposte/Finishing Move are relatively common. He offers me a straight punch, I duck under, grab his wrist as he overextends, and hip throw him- since he is momentarily stunned, I slam a fist or elbow into his exposed solar plexus. In SR terms that was him attacking, me Riposting with a knock down attack, and Finishing Move with an attack after that. That happens in real life in well under 3 seconds and again, neither of us are particularly good at this. Or he does it to me, or sometimes even more blows are exchanged and in a faster amount of time. Throws take a good little while.

Also, excluding someone who builds their character to Riposte, it will never get that crazy, especially since I have always understood the DP mods for defending against multiple attacks to last until you actually get to react again and set yourself back on an equilibrium. Apparently, you guys or some of your anyway, disagree but that is fine, I like the way we have always read it as working(since well before Arsenal and these problems.)

As for not allowing the guy who builds his character to Riposte to Riposte like mad, well, this is just a style thing, but I warn my characters that while I will semi-cater to their abilities, if they build a one trick pony they will be bored a lot of the time as I will not break realism or intelligent tactics in the name of letting then "uberpwn"(yes someone said this at my table*shudder*) people with some maneuver or weapon that they have invested insane amounts of BP in. This is not to say it won't ever come up, it will, but I do my best to play the opposition with the intelligence and tactical forethought that I believe they should have. So, if it is obviously stupid, don't expect anyone outside of a drugged up/drunk guy or chiphead to keep doing it after it has been proven to be a moronic solution to the problem. They know I won't cater excessively to their build style and I review the sheets and warn them of weaknesses and flaws like that before the game starts. So, never been a problem.

Chris

Totally here. I will never screw a player for wanting to play something they will really have fun with. But i will explain to them that I can't cater to them specifically-or any one person specifically for that matter. They will have their chance to shine, no doubt. But I will give some tips that they can still make an uber whatever, but bringing the DP down from 22 to 18 will give them a few other things to invest in so they don't get bored. If they don't mind sitting around bored when they can't do something, hey, more power too em i say. I've made a few more specialized guys before, but i usually make sure to at least give them ONE backup they can do pretty well so they can hang without being bored. They can 'uberpwn' sometimes, but it won't happen ALL the time. Likewise, if someone wants That BFG of Pwnage, they can get it, and i'll make sure it gets to come out once in awhile. I also see the whole 'infinite IP borrowing' like this. There WILL be times where it's a bad idea. It won't happen every combat. If combat is going with wave 1 and wave 2 comes in(and combat is still going-so there isn't a break to 'refresh' everything, and yes, this can happen if wave 2 is on initative and just moving toward the players), and they are stuck with their pants down essentially they might think again before burning 16 IPs to take out four guys. But those times it can happen? Sounds fun.

I was thinking about this (i.e. next available action) on my drive to lunch today. I had some new thoughts and I think this is how I will rule this at my table.

Since Initiative has yet to be rolled for the second combat turn, I will not count those as available actions (mainly because I have no idea if another combat turn will be needed). So, the 4IP fighter, can borrow actions in the current combat turn, as once initiative was rolled, they all became available. This locks my players into 3 seconds...whether they use all 4 IPs in the first pass (riposting, blocking, etc) or throughout, its still the same amount of actions any 4IP fighter can have in 3 seconds.

The second piece to this is the refreshing of the "additional attack" modifiers. These refresh on each available action and accumulate from the last action. So, again the 4IP fighter, as an example, ripostes in IP 1 and takes a -1 for his next defense. Well, that comes in, and he takes another Riposte (borrowing from IP 2), and now refreshes as he just acted. He does so 2 more times, thus using all 4 of his complex actions in IP 1...but now, his next action isn't going to occur until we roll initiative again, and thus that -1 piles up with each attack he defends.

Like others have mentioned, its worth it if he can defeat the enemies quickly with the borrowed actions. If not, then he'll be at a disadvantage when everyone is still alive and attacking him and he is getting bigger DP penalties.

Not saying this will work for everyone, but this is something that I think will work for my table. Thanks to all of the discussion that has taken place in this thread and others on this topic.

Just a point, this has happened before in other discussions. But this doesn't allow people with one IP to interrupt at all. Which is why I've stated the 3 seconds ahead house rule. So if you have 4 IP's and your in your 3rd pass, you can borrow 4 actions (up to the 3rd pass of your next turn). If you have 1 IP, you can only ever borrow your next action (which is in the next turn). Just keep in mind that once one of your borrowed actions passes, it opens up another pass you can borrow (regenerating passes in a way).

Not saying this is how it has to be done, but don't forget your low IP's when your designing. Equal opportunity and all that...

I think I like that Deek.

If you do not allow the 'borrowing' of Actions from subsequent turns, how does a character with 1 IP ever get to use Full Defense as an interrupt action?

It is expressly allowed for Full Defense, you can spend edge to have another IP, or you might not have acted before.

Jackie Chan uses Edge
Jet Li's an Adept
Jason Bourne uses Jazz via Autoinjector installed by the government
and Chuck Norris only needs one pass

With the one IP and borrowing actions; i thought they were allowed as well...or do you have to have 2 IPs to borrow?

If you can borrow and borrow(by RAW), and just keep piling modifiers, does it matter if you have 1 or 4? of course the 4 IP person has the advantage of probably not needing to borrow actions in the first place.

By RAW it doesn't matter how many IPs you have, you can borrow. By the multiple borrowing, it doesn't matter how many IP's you have, unless you houserule a cap based on their IPs (which is what some of us are wanting).

The 4 IP person I'd like to be able to borrow 4 actions in order to Riposte and drop opponents in one flourish. But I wouldn't want him to borrow more than his IP's (for the sake of not wanting him to borrow action's faster than he is actually using them). Basically I like borrowing 1 combat turn ahead, regardless of where you are at during the current turn. A turn as I define it extends from pass on current turn, until the same pass in the next turn, pass 2 to pass 2 or pass 3 to pass 3.

This follows the consistancy of a grenade going off at the same initiative in the next pass, even if you toss a grenade during the 4th pass its still going to detonate on the same initiative at the start of next turn. It does not rely on what pass you are on, or even how many IP's you have it works for whenever such a feat happens.

I can find no disclaimer in the rules stating that Full Defense works any different than any other Interrupt Action. Therefore, if it is 'expressly allowed' that the character can use an Interrupt Action to activate Full Defense (using his next available Action in the following turn if necessary), then it is also 'expressly allowed' for all the other Interrupt Actions to work in the same manner.

Am I missing a piece of text that differentiates between the Interrupt Actions, allowing some to be used in one manner (overlapping turns), while limiting others to the current turn?

I think Nightwalker's been pretty clear that he's changing the rules to suit his personal preference, so it really shouldn't matter what the RAW allows or doesn't allow.

Actually this was off of Deek's house rule idea. Which had this oversight in that it wouldn't allow people with 1 IP to interrupt. I offered a fix so that they could then, which is by RAW.

So far I haven't changed any rules in mine, I offered up the house rule to allow for more than 1 interrupt. All I have done is define "next available action" which everyone has to at this time.

Thanks for the update, even if it is not quite correct. If that were the case though, one might surmise that I was trying to ascertain if he was making a blanket rule change to cover all Interrupt Actions, or merely the Maneuvers, leaving Full Defense as it is written in canon.

There is no given form of an Interrupt Action. The rules need to allow you to take a specific action earlier. Deek suggested that the MA maneuvers be limited to IPs of the current turn. I said Full Defense is exempted because its IP may explicitly be taken from the next turn. The only hardcoded limit seems to be that you only ever may take 4 IPs per round.

To go back to the bow example, the reason I would rather argue for official errata or a faq on it is this; If I play with multiple GMs in multiple games, I'd like for the vast majority of the rules to be the same between the games. Granted, any GM can change a rule they do or don't like to suit them, which I can live with. But rules which are ambiguous or undefined (like the bow limit example) can be interpreted differently, (such as one GM limiting their rating to 6, while the other might change the damage code from str+2 to Str/2+2). I think such examples as this should have official errata or faqs to clearly explain the limit or lack of one, or other fixes required (damage code change for example) rather than leaving such an ambiguity present.

Full Defense uses the same language (as far as i can remember) as the martial arts maneuvers. Thusly, it isn't exempted any more or less than the MA maneuvers.

The RAW is clear on bows, they shouldn't need an FAQ to explain rules that are totally clear. But you can always email them if you want to be sure whether bows are supposed to be unlimited. Quasi-official rulings don't totally solve the uncertainty you're talking about, but they'd have to write a 100 page FAQ if they were gonna explain rules that aren't even ambiguous. Bows are clear, they're just insane, which makes you wonder, but I don't think that's enough to require an official ruling



That's correct, the same language is used each time the game talks about interrupt actions, they all in theory should work the same.

I never said the RAW was not clear on bows. I said that it is an issue which is frequently brought up on dumpshock, (in addition to being frequently house-ruled by dumpshockers) and as such I believe it is an issue that would benefit from being addressed by official errata or faq.

You agree they are insane, so why do you disagree that such insanity should be addressed?

Just because if they were going to FAQ clear rules, there would be no end to it, we'd have 100 pages of official FAQ. They should FAQ unclear things that people are actually confused about.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't address it at all, I just don't think an FAQ or errata is the right way to do that. Someone should definitely ask about it in the next dev chat, though! I'd be curious what the hell they were thinking...

How exactly do you recommend they address it officially without using FAQ or errata?

Um, didn't I just suggest the developer chat?

And, as long as it's perfectly clear, why do we need an official addressing? Again, if they had to provide official rulings on every rule, clear or not, they wouldn't have time to keep working on new books. Just send them an email if you have a question

The same language, minus the part about drawing an IP from the next turn. This is explicit for maneuvers where?

Granted I don't have my books, but I think both only talk of borrowing your next action, nothing is ever said about IP's or combat turns (unless given in an example, again no books so I can't say for sure).

Um, which would then be posted officially and distilled down to a Q and A or FAQ. Unless of course you think it would solve any issues to have an official but not clearly posted set of dev answers that few people know and evolved over time as the dev chat is retold.

Why officially address it? Because it would cut down are arguments about what the rule is supposed to mean. Leaving discussions about whether and how a rule is followed or houseruled.

I don't think I understand what you're referring to.



Look, the only thing I'm trying to get across is that pounding your fist and insisting that Catalyst SHOULD make an official ruling won't accomplish ANYTHING. If you want a ruling, ask them! Send them an email, or wait for the next dev chat. You can posit a better world all you want, but we're not powerless here. They aren't locked up in an ivory tower. You want a ruling? Go get one instead of complaining about how there isn't one. Then you can post it here and enlighten everyone.

And regardless, we shouldn't need an official ruling. Official rulings don't settle anything. I've seen numerous people insist that the entire official FAQ is invalid because some of its answers are really stupid. And just because something is official doesn't mean we have to play it that way. It comes down to: play it the way you want to. If the rules are perfectly crystal clear, but you hate them, then throw them out! It really shouldn't be necessary to have Catalyst come in and confirm that the crystal clear rules are crystal clear. We already know that!

The only reason for an official errata or FAQ is if they were going to change the rules... which is again something you can lobby them for. Don't just complain about it on a thread they won't read though, let the bastards know! They actually care what players think, they just can't be everywhere at once.

By repeatedly stating that the rules are crystal clear you are distorting what the disagreement is about. Yes, the rules are clear. We know that. They are clear in that there is no limit for bows, and if a character wants to buy a rating 20 bow at charge, he can. For the low cost of 2,000. Many of us agree that there OUGHT to be a limit on bows, and would like for such a limit to be officially addressed, since it is such a commonly houseruled item. The reasoning for wanting official rule change is to expand the portability of such characters. Instead of having one based on having a rating 10 bow work fine at one table, yet be denied by the GM at another due to house rules, or be virtually worthless in combat at another table due to different houserules.

As long as the thread is around, I had another question.

Is there a reason the Sai weapon's (Arse, 39) special ability (negating the -4 penalty for disarm attacks) was specifically worded to only be allowed on a called shot disarm, and not on the maneuver disarm?

Another question: Can a character with the Sweep and Vicious Blow maneuvers combine them together? Ex: Fighter A has the maneuvers, and makes an attack to knockdown Mook B. He claims he is using the vicious blow manuever on his knockdown attack, and suffers a -2 die penalty. He also elects to use his sweep maneuver, causing the knockdown to cause stun damage as if it were a normal melee attack. Does his attack become physical damage?

I can see arguements for both sides, but honestly, I don't see how it is too terribly broken if it were allowed. Though, my leaning is that by RAW it is not allowed, as a knock down attack does not normally cause stun damage, thus, keeping it from qualifying for vicious blow.

Right, I know, that's why I'm suggesting that you tell Catalyst. You know, the guys who might do something about it? Telling me won't accomplish anything, and they might not be paying attention to this thread. So drop em an email. Generally, an errata or FAQ is for errors, or interpretations of unclear rules, which is why I was saying it might not make sense for them to do either. But they have been known to use both to completely change the rules, so it's not out of the question that they would.

On your question: sure, why not? It's a sweep which is Vicious. It suffers a penalty for being Vicious. So I say let em!

Actually, you said, "And regardless, we shouldn't need an official ruling. Official rulings don't settle anything. I've seen numerous people insist that the entire official FAQ is invalid because some of its answers are really stupid. And just because something is official doesn't mean we have to play it that way. It comes down to: play it the way you want to. If the rules are perfectly crystal clear, but you hate them, then throw them out! It really shouldn't be necessary to have Catalyst come in and confirm that the crystal clear rules are crystal clear. We already know that!"

Which really is you suggesting that we shouldn't bother them with it. 'Since anyone can change the rules, why bother for official rule changes' is what your position boils down to.

Oh noes! Defeated by my own wurds! I iz dumb.

Seriously... why are we harping on this? It's true that you shouldn't need an official ruling if you don't like the rules, you should go ahead and change them. It's also true that if you want one, go bug the devs about it. It's also true THAT THIS IS A RETARDED ARGUMENT TO BE HAVING. So let's let it go, k? You win. Because evidently you really want to, and I really don't care.

So in my rulebooks, full defense as an interrupt action is very clear worded, and the maneuvers just speak of the next available action. Care to find me the part where maneuvers have the same wording allowing them to borrow IPs from the next round? You claimed same wording, please back it up.



I believe deek may have found an interpretation that is less broken than unlimited IPs, and entirely within RAW if "next available action" uses the right definition of "available".



@Tarantula: I´d generally allow the combination of maneuvers, especially as they are allowed to be combined with "other combat options". PM AniH if you want another opinion. The Sai has the additional disarm option of Full Defense + Follow Up Attack without mod, all others have to disarm with a Called Shot or Full Defense-4.

I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. If you're the one trying to prove everyone else is wrong, I think the burden is for you to produce the language that backs you up. All it says, as far as I can see, is "Going on full defense as an interrupt, however, uses up the character’s next available action." This is no more explicit about letting you borrow when you're out of IPs than any other interrupt in the game.



Yes, that's the interpretation that forbids people with 1 IP from using a full defense interrupt after they have already acted. Unless you use your mystery language that I can't find to say full defense works differently.

For full defense, the German BBB (pg. 151) continues along the lines of "A character may even declare Full Defense if he has no complex action left in the current turn. In that case, he looses the first complex action of the following turn". Is the english version different?