Ok, so these manuvers in Arsenal. I admit im still sorta trying to figure them out and need a bit more clearing up. There's been a couple threads already on some but they didn't answer all my questions.

Ok, so first: Tae Kwan Do(and if i recall a couple others) have a Martial Arts ability that grants +1 when fighting against multiple opponents.

There is the 'Friends in the Melee' bonus. Say a character with this ability is fighting against two people. I guess BOTH sides get the bonus, then? My guy's two opponents would get +1 for having a friend in the melee, but since he has that ability, he'd also get +1 to his attacks? And im guessing that this bonus would be applied BEFORE a dice pool split(if he wanted to take more than one attack.)

Finishing Move. I recall this being discussed before. According to the book is says the character hits, they can use up a second attack to take the attack right there to finish off the opponent. By the sound of this, you NEED to have two initative passes minimum to even bother taking this attack. Is this the case? Or is there something more here that im not seeing? I know that to 'activate' this combo you need to have a successful first attack, but im kinda unclear about the initative pass part. Now, someone without this ability, if they wanted to split their dice pool, could attack an opponent twice in a row in one pass. But im assuming you get your full DP for both of these attacks too.

Riposte. This has been discussed before too. If you successfully block or parry, you can take a counterattack. Does this require a second pass available? Or if you are lucky and parry 3 people in a row, can you Riposte each one of them? This sounds like a really nasty manuver if you have the skill and Reaction to back it up. Also, if i'm on Full Defense(Reaction + my Gymnastics Dodge + my Unarmed skill)...can Riposte still 'trigger' or is it on Normal Defense only? Im GUESSING it's the latter but im not sure.

Watchful Guard. Ok, so i don't take penalties until a 3rd attack comes my way, im assuming in that same phase. So someone pops me with 2 bullets i just roll Reaction as normal in an attempt to dodge(if im not on full defense), and then Body/Armor as appropriate, but i take no minuses to these, it looks like. A 3rd person decides to shoot and i guess THEN the negative modifers come in.

Set Up: Ok, Im unsure when the net hits to setup run out, if they do. Again, do i need to have 2 initative passes for this? (Fake the first attack and when attack 2 comes let em have it). For the Set Up attack, is it resolved normally (I attack, they roll their defense, but since it's a fake, not Body or Armor?), then the net hits from THAT get added onto my next attack?

Im still trying to totally wrap my head around exactly how these things work. Honestly, we havn't had a hell of a lot of combat so far in SR4, and we havn't used Arsenal live yet.

yeah, both sides get thier bonus. only skill modifier are added to dicepools before splitting them, i think this counts as a dice pool modifier.



good questions. if it were up to me you'd need two IPs to use them (unless you were using riposte before your first action).



this one just says 'your next attack against this target'. and yeah, no damage so no damage resistance test.

It doesn't require multiple Initiative passes, only that you haven't used your next action (by my definition, some people are wanting to borrow actions indefinatly). If you are on your last IP for the turn, then you borrow your first IP of the next turn.

I admit these things look a bit easier than they seem at first.

Ok, when it comes to ordinary old blocking, you seem to can do that however long you want. If Goon A runs up to me and tries to hit me and then runs away(lets keep Friends of Melee and Fighting Group bonuses out of this for simplicity's sake and keep it bare bones), i can block. Goon B can run up to me and do the same, and i can do the same. And if there are four goons all wanting to hit me(ok, so their strategy here is bad but again, to try to cut out modifiers), I can sit there and block all the time if I want to. Not even full defense; i can just roll my Unarmed + Reaction.

However, I don't think i'd be able to Riposte all of them...can i? The Finishing Move is pretty obvious about saying ''it uses your next action to do this''. But Riposte doesn't seem to. If Goon A runs up to me and tries to hit me(say they have lots of initative but crappier attack pools, or something), I successfully block, I Riposte, and boot him one. If goon B comes running next at me in the conga line of doom, do I get another counterattack, or can I only block these subsequent guys unless I use up my NEXT action?

If it's indeed i can keep Riposte-ing(is that a word? ) them as they keep running down the alley for a piece, it's a DAMNED powerful manuver, especially for someone with a high Reaction and Weapon/Unarmed skill. On the OTHER hand, if you have to use up actions to use it..then it seems...well, not so great...since i could have just blocked and attacked on my next phase ANYWAY. Though i guess it has a benefit of sacrificing the next action to take the guy out NOW on Initative Score 14 rather than the, say, 11 my guy ended up going on. EDIT: It can also it seems be good for at least injuring the opponent to give them DP/Initative modifiers for when you attack them as well and for their next turn. So it's definately not bad if it uses up attacks.

Riposte uses up actions just like Finishing Move. So just borrow one at a time, and it works out fine.

We use this as a DP mod, so it applies after you split DP, which is why the bonus is nice and it actually promoted DP splitting...


It doesn't say this action needs to be from this round, or even from next round, it just says the next available one...
Also, according to RAW finishing move qualifies for finishing move, so it is an infinite loop, but this is generally regarded as silly...

Same as with Finishing move, it uses up your next available action...
Theoretically, the following could happen:
You have 1 IP, so does your opponent...
You go first, you hit him, do some damage, you're out of actions for this round...
He hits you, you block, you riposte (now you're out of actions for next round) and hit him, because you hit, you can now do a finish move and you're out of actions for the round after next round...

Pretty much yes, it's like a recoil modifier but in defense penalties...

Yup, they only roll defense, no body or armor since you're not actually hitting them, just setting them up for a better strike next time...
The bonus also only lasts for your next attack...

If the guy in our previous examle gets attacked be 4 people with 2 IPs each, you could block, riposte and finish move all of them twice, or at least, you could try, the last one will be at a -7 penalty to block (-6 with watchful guard)...
But he'd be out of actions for the next 15 rounds...

Ahh, this is all helping alot. See, i was kind of unclear about the whole 'giving up moves' thing.

It sounds like it all can be worth it if you really think you can finish off the, say, 3 opponents coming after you. That third one i get a minus to defend against but since my block pool is pretty nice, it won't be too bad.

(That reminds me: Riposte on Full Defense allowed? Im guessing no but who knows.)

And i figured the Finishing Move loop was pretty silly, so i kinda knew you couldn't pull that one off.

When we did SR4 combat before, it was pre Arsenal and all of these cool moves; and honestly it was pretty cut and dry; we pulled out a couple little tricks, but nothing about 'saving turns' and the like. They were smaller combats and none of these really had a chance to come into play. Now with all of this new stuff it's a good idea to learn. Some of these strategies seem nice (Give up yet ANOTHER attack this round or what?)

The whole 'Giving Up attacks' bit seems like it can get really powerful. Like you said, technically if you wanted to you could keep blocking/Riposte every time you get attacked, but you'd be out of actions(though I think a free action is still allowed, unsure here). So you'd have to basically go into ''Uber Defense Mode'' if you took this path. Not to mention since my character is melee-specialized, if they send 3 mooks at him after another and he takes them ALL out(giving up said, like 6-7 next turns), the other side might wise up and you know, have people hide and shoot instead...in which he wouldn't be able to act for awhile. So giving up attacks willy-nilly doesn't look like the best idea all the time. (And since full defense counts as an action, that would be out too if he were without actions awhile).

Well, will be fun to see this stuff in action anyway. Im just giddy they gave melee combatants cool stuff.

Actually, the thing with giving up actions is the defense penalty lasts until you get your next action, but since you gave up all your actions for 15 turns, you kinda fucked if you didn't take out all opponents...
Also, it seems very powerful in optimal conditions, but as soon as one of them pulls a gun, again, you're fucked...
Riposte does work with full parry and full block though...
We have never felt the need to cap the amount of actions you can 'borrow' from the coming rounds because borrowing too much is very dangerous...

Seems like figuring a good balance is the key. Ditching, say, 2 actions if you KNOW you can take out a couple of people might be ok.

My character has 2 IPs and a pretty large unarmed pool(again, that's his thing.) He goes first: smashes one guy, follows up with a finisher(with an adept with crit strike, not so bad). Done that phase. But the other guy attacks him...he's ok because he's just the second guy. The guy who attacks him had just taken a shot from someone else though, say got 3 boxes filled in. My guy's just closer. So he blocks the attack...and that might be a good time to give up another action; since he only gave up his one and his 2nd IP that time and would have been fine when everything reset. Riposte-and that's enough to finish.

Now, after THAT things could get hairy; it might just be better to block the next attack but not give up anymore actions. I guess what it boils down to is sizing up your opponents, seeing how they are attacking, and run with it from there. You know, like an actual smart fighter might do.

Now, if there are only, say, 3, maybe 4 guys total; maybe giving up the turns isn't a bad idea. And if you have other members on your team(usually the case, unless its a 'lets split up!' instance), you won't be pulling all the weight yourself, of course.

But wow, Riposte working with full parry and block...that's nice. Sure it's yet another action(since full defense is an action in itself) but it could save you from that...THING hitting you.

Not in my games.

So if someone is using two-weapon fighting to full parry with one weapon and attack with the other, you don't allow them to riposte with the parry weapon? Or do you mean you don't allow riposte in full defense as in dodging?

No, I would not. The person has used an Action to put the majority of his concentration (with that weapon anyway) on Full Defense (not getting hit), so I would have no problems with denying Riposte in this situation.



That too!

I think that choosing to use Full Defense is choosing to put all of your energy and attention into not being hit. I don't think a character should be able to springboard attacks off the Full Defense Action.

I'd argue that with two-weapon fighting, you are not putting all your effort into defending. You've trained yourself to defend more effectively by keeping one weapon purely defensive and leaving the other to strike.

Which is where classic riposte maneuvers become most effective in real fencing in my experience, since you can open holes in your opponent's defense by parrying with your main-gauche or cloak and strike with your offensive hand.

That aside, I consider successfully defending against an attack using full parry a "successful parry". But eh, your game, your rules.

It would certainly cut down the effectiveness of a defensive build to more manageable levels I suppose.

I understand the arguments, and have quite a solid grasp on the basics of two-weapon fighting. I don't care! For my games, balance is maintained by not allowing attacks to be launched from a Full Defense position. Makes me happy.

While I can see the virtues of your point of view, we've never done it this way and it hasn't been unbalancing in any way, since the riposte isn't a free attack, you just sacrifice your next one...
It is, however, a house rule...

For now.

Actually, apart from the 2 handed technique, it does make more sense, I might discuss this with our group next session...

I'm up in the air about the two-handed technique myself. I do understand that it should be reasonable to allow Riposte when a person is using this tactic, but in my opinion they are already gaining a huge benefit with being able to both attack and fully defend with no extra penalties, and I don't want to give them what basically amounts to a 'free shot' pretty much every single time they get swung at. I understand it isn't technically 'free', but for all intents and purposes it is, as Actions can just be borrowed until the end of combat, which comes even faster if I allow this combo.

Well it is a decent karmic investment to even attempt this stunt...
And it's only useful as long as no one starts shooting...
I think I would allow it...
Using it to any great effect would require a lot of tactics anyway...
Of course, it would get interesting if 2 people like this met...

This is part of my problem. Even though the character is in melee (and actually getting attacks in), he is still technically using Full Defense. This would apply to ranged combat as well. More bonuses!

I should chime in to underscore that while some people have made house rules that you can only borrow so many actions, that doesn't appear in the RAW. Per RAW, you can always borrow an action.

I don't see a problem with this, because you always have another action coming up -- it's not like you're generating actions for free, there is a cost, and that cost is your next action. And the only way for you to borrow an action is for very specific things to happen. It isn't like you suddenly decide to borrow a hundred actions and kill everyone. With Finishing Move, you can borrow one action to make an extra attack. With Riposte, you can potentially borrow a pisston of actions. But only as long as people keep attacking you. If you are Bruce Lee on a rampage, unlike in Bruce Lee's movies, the enemies will stop trying to punch you because you knock them out every time they try. They will pull out guns and start shooting you, at least they should. And in order to get lots of ripostes in the first place, you'd have to be one badass mofo, because you'll be suffering from enemy "friends in melee" penalties, and cumulative penalties for each attack you defend against. If you happen to have the mountain of dice it requires you to borrow 10 actions while Riposting in one round, more power to you. It's just like how if you manage to have so many dice you can shoot pistols with your eyes closed, backwards, and still get a bullseye. It isn't broken when people spend most of their BP/Karma to do something powerful. It's only broken when that thing's cost is disproportionately small to its benefit. For what it does, Riposte is very expensive -- in order to borrow a ridiculous number of actions without first getting beaten to death by multiple opponents, you need so many dice that you really deserve to go Enter the Dragon style on their asses.

I might be making this up... But since he had declared a Full Parry (in order to riposte), he would get nothing but Reaction vs Ranged combat, because you can't Full Parry a ranged weapon. If he was in Full Defense (Dodge), then he would be able to dodge both the melee and the ranged, but couldn't Riposte since he has to parry or block in order to use the maneuver.

Well, no, you're using full parry, which translates to just reaction vs ranged since melee defense doesn't help against bullets (At least until they start producing lightsabres)...
You can't use full parry vs melee and full dodge or gymnastic dodge vs ranged at the same time...
Apparently Arsenal says you can use full defense, so you can full dodge with one weapon and attack with the other...
That makes no sense at all...
I shall also discuss with our group making that full parry...
EDIT: Of course, then Nightwalker450 also makes a good point...

Along your same lines of "It doesn't say I can't borrow as many actions as I want", it doesn't say you can't use Finishing Move on a finishing move, it also doesn't say that you can't use setup as a finishing move. So anyone you get close to, you can setup Finishing Move (Setup), Finishing Move (setup), continue until your opponent has a -30 dodge penalty because each of these is a seperate attack. And your setup bonuses have stacked further and further, and you throw 40 dice againt no dodge, so might as well throw a called shot to negate the armor, and you're throwing 30 dice now resisted only by body. Some boss battle, anyone you close with and can get 2 hits in a row on you kill. You say stacking Finishing Moves is retarded, I say stacking Ripostes are just as bad. Your logical reading of it excludes your own reading when its not convenient for you.

Neither do I. I only really have a problem with the ability to launch attacks (over and above those normally granted by two-weapon technique) while using Full Defense.




Fair enough. But I still don't like it! The whole idea of devoting all of your effort into defending yourself should preclude the ability to swing away with added precision.

I think the language is pretty clear. It says it uses the next available action. Which implies that if the next action in line is unavailable, because it has already been used for an interrupt, it goes on down the line. This isn't just a case of "it doesn't say I can't," I think it pretty clearly says I can. Any limit you impose is arbitrary, based on nothing but your own fancy. Do you limit interrupts to 1 per turn? Or do you limit them to how many Action Phases the person has left in the turn? Whatever you do, you're superimposing your own language on top of the RAW, which has no such limitation.

Finishing move is a different issue, you're putting words in my mouth. I think finishing move is limited by its own language: the person may make "an" additional attack, i.e. just one. It's not the only way you can read it, but it's a plausible reading that is logically consistent and makes good sense. It doesn't require me inventing a new rule from whole cloth to fix something broken, I'm just reading the rule in a permissible way so that it won't need fixing in the first place. You could logically read it to create an infinite loop, but why would you want to? Because you'd rather house rule the entire interrupt action system than look for ways to interpret the RAW sanely? That's not really how I do things. You go ahead though

The person may make "an" addition attack with a successful attack. Would literally read that you make one additional attack per success.. If you succeed twice you could make 2 additional attacks. It doesn't allow you to make 1 successful attack, and then get 10 finishing moves. You have to succeed at all the finishing moves in the chain. You're just selectively reading you don't want infinite finishing moves, but you do want someone to riposte an infinite amount of melee attacks. I'm not house ruling anything on the interrupt system (any more than you are), by saying you can only borrow your "next" action, you can't borrow 15 minutes into the future.

These interpretations and questions on interrupts are very irritating, and the majority don't make sense. And I dislike people who are new, or trying to understand these getting responses that are quite game breaking. Sorry to bring this up again, but I just don't like the way this pans out, and it seems like noone but me will ever speak up for the ridiculousness of infinite borrowing of actions.

Oh and FYI Defense Modifiers don't reset on your "next available action" they reset during every action you have. So you could sit in full parry (excluding fortune not allowing full parry to riposte, which I'm fine with it, being a house rule), and riposte every melee attack that comes in, and your defense would reset during each of your skipped actions. And you could always interrupt to get full parry again (since we can borrow from 15 minutes ahead anyways, it wouldn't make sense to limit this as well)

This is how much it gets under my skin, I'm on my third post in a row...

Anyways the best house rule I can come up with, would be to allow them to borrow up to their number of Initiative Passes ahead. 1 IP can only borrow one, 4 IP can borrow 4 actions. This allows the person with 4 IP's, to riposte 4 goons. The reason I'd go for this is so that someone with more IP's than their opponents could effectively handle more opponents. He could counter all 4 of them, but when his second pass came he wouldn't be in Full Parry mode any more. He'd have to borrow again to get it, and it would be ok since he'd still be maintaining 4 actions ahead, but continuing full parry for every round he wouldn't be able to riposte since any attempt to perform both at the same time would be trying to borrow that 5th action.

This house rule is more to provide the cinematic flourish to the 4 IP person, as he counters the goons. A 1 IP person would never be able to pull this off, he doesn't have the reflexes and reaction required to handle more than 1 at a time. Thats what IPs are for, not MA.

Editing a previous post: do you know how to do it?



So the solution is... don't read it quite so literally! I don't think the devs were trying to write a maneuver that would allow infinite attacks, do you? And it's plausible to read it to only allow one attack, right? So let's read it that way. You have no reason to read it the other way -- it hurts game balance, and it is clearly contrary to the intent of the rules, there is no reason to be so literal. Just because you can read it wrong doesn't mean you should. That's a given, right?



Again, you're being literal to the point of absurdity. It doesn't say next available action, but maybe that's how we should read it. It's badly written, but that doesn't mean we have to play it like we're mindless automatons. We have the power to apply our own reason and common sense to reading the rules. Instead of purposefully not doing that and complaining about it, let's use our valuable cognitive faculties and move on without whinging about it. You can definitely read that to say that your defense modifiers reset the next time you're supposed to have an action, whether you have already used it up on an interrupt or not. It's not the only way to read it, but it's the only way that isn't stupid.

You can criticize the devs all you want for poor drafting, they certainly deserve it. But you can't use an excessively literal reading of the rules to "prove" that you need house rules. You, as much as anyone, can recognize which readings are absurd and which aren't. And you should be able to accept the proposition that the devs weren't trying to write absurd rules. The proper course is to read the rules rationally, applying common sense, not excessively literally in order to get ammunition that you can use to fling poo at the system on Dumpshock. The former is for humans, the latter is more suited to apes. I'm not saying you can't house rule, but I don't think any argument you make about the fact that the rules can be read absurdly has any legs. It's a non-starter of an argument. You can read anything absurdly, let's just get on with it and play the game already.

Yeah, but each was its own train of thought, so I left them as seperate posts to keep them seperate.

As to everything else, its all about how you read it. And I read infinite riposte as ridiculous and you don't. So you really have little room to tell me I'm reading those wrong as well, I'm just trying to apply your "literal" reading of the rules where it would apply. My reading places a definition on Next Available Action as just your next Action, and holds water no matter what you look at. Your reading is different for each one, depending on what fits your perception of it.

Well, this conversation got interesting.


IMO, I'd allow a Full Defense Riposte.

See, the way im looking at it, it's plenty balance. The average melee machine probably is jucing their attacks and not their defense. In my experience(now others may see different), someone with...Reaction 6(modified), Blades(Swords) or Unarmed(Strikes) 5(+2), gets 11 dice to parry. (They have to specialize in block/parry to get the extra bonus there).

These people are usually packing....at best...4-5 extra dice on a Gymnastics Dodge or Dodge(melee)...and usually Dodge takers take the specialization in Ranged.

Full Defense takes up that action. Now, they can either:

A. Block/Parry normally with the 11 dice and then Riposte. Uses up 1 action.
B. Take 3-5 extra dice and Full Defend/Riposte. Uses 2 actions, 1 for Full Defense, 1 Riposte. (from what i gathered. I was the one asking exactly how it works, go figure. )

Now, to me, 3-5 extra dice is...1-2 hits on average? If you wanna give up a whole second action for that, be my guest. Seems balanced to me. And there is still no guarentee you'll get the Riposte if you don't successfully block. Yeah, 1-2 extra hits is a bonus; but it's a costly bonus, IMO.

And every time you full defend/riposte, its 2 actions. Personally, I think you are better off using option A.

Of course, there will probably be someone that builds the Ultimate Riposte Machine(5 Gymnastics with Synthacardium, juiced Reaction and Agility, juiced Melee skill specialized in Parry, and whatnot.) But that's kind of specific.

I'm not trying to be literal, I'm only trying to be sensible. Do you disagree with that? Maybe we can read rules differently based on what would make the rules insane and/or stupid. Maybe that's not some kind of crime. Infinite Finishing Moves is patently absurd, you just have to attack once and then you can attack ten thousand million times. That's stupid, right? But each Riposte requires someone to attack you, and you to defend successfully. No matter how high your dice pool, you can only riposte so many times before you die. Instead of infinite, by the numbers, someone's ability to Riposte is very finite. Plus, it requires people to attack them in melee, which they can't cause to happen, they have to wait for an NPC to do it.

I'm not telling you that your readings are invalid, I'm telling you that they're BAD. And you agree with me! You're not saying that infinite finishing moves is a good thing. But you don't HAVE to read the rules to allow that! According to common sense and a reasoned notion of developer intent, they don't! You're reading the rules in the worst possible way, in a way that leads to a result you actively dislike. And then criticizing me for adopting a common sense approach that sidesteps your absurdity. Seriously, wtf? We can agree to disagree, but can you refrain from questioning my intelligence and/or integrity? Or do you need so much to be right that you can't let my valid rules arguments stand unchallenged, even if you have no substantive criticism to bring against them?

The actual wording says something like 'since your last action' which we interpret to be your last real action (Declaring Full Defense or the action before that if the full defense was an interrupt), since on your next ip, you don't have an action, you used it before, you only get the free one, which we don't count...
We also don't limit the amount of interrupt actions, since it's self limiting this way...
And people can pull off some pretty cinematic stuff if they use their heads and vice versa...
I've seen our adept take care of several melee gangers on his own without trouble...
I've also seen him get his ass handed to him because he borrowed one too many actions for interrupts...
Also, most of these examples are too extreme to actually happen in play...
Yes, theoretically, one guy could riposte 30 times in a round, but the odds of that happening are smaller than wining the lottery...
Call me as soon as that happens and I'll review my opinion on how we do the rules...

The system works well with "only one IP"-borrowing. If you run this by RAW, unaugmented chars can pull rather unbelievable stuff by learning Riposte.

Well, yes, they can, if they have a high enough skill, which works out, according to us...
EDIT: there really seems no point to my post except having the last word...
Feel free to ignore it...

This is the same craziness about people complaining that 20 dice pistoliers can do some amazing pistol shots. DUH! They have almost double the dice of the best unaugmented person who ever lived, so... yeah. Same for a martial artist. If you put all the points into have an epic unarmed combat dice pool, you had BETTER be able to beat up a whole gang that rushes you all at once. Just look at how Jet Li does it. Sure, he's in the movies, but I think that someone with powerful cyber and/or magic augmentations ought to be at least as good as a movie character, if not better.

In fact, Riposte is a lot worse than just a high pistols score. Because after you beat up four people who rush you, the rest of the enemies will probably stop trying to punch you and just shoot you. Infinite ripostes requires an infinite number of opponents who are stupid enough to keep trying to punch you after you show them that you're untouchable in melee... not gonna happen in actual practice.

Defensive modifiers reset upon reaching the character's next Action, whether it is used already or not. This is true whether the character has declared the use of Full Defense or not. Each Action, the cumulative penalty for defending against attacks is reset to zero.

Actually:

So the modifier would reset everything you take an action, even an interrupt one, which would make riposte teh roxxorz!!!11one
I think I'll stick to our version of it...

Heres to hoping 'they' FAQ it, but likely it won't be. After all we have the "if you don't like it, gm, then change it" CYA rule.

They really don't need an FAQ, do they? Do they need to specifically tell us, "No, the rules were not intended to be BAT SHIT INSANE!" We can figure that out for ourselves without Words from on High. And I think that's Catalysts's philosophy. If they had a policy of FAQing every crazy piece of shit interpretation everyone put forth on dumpshock, it would never end.

Calm down a bit. Nobody claimed that Riposte was too powerful, just that a close reading breaks down the IP system for no specific reason.

Recall, Larme, yours is also interpretation.

And will be so, as will ours, until and only until, it is put in writing by on high.


And at that point one side or the other (or all others) can choose to Houserule it. I much rather houserule what I don't like then go back in forth about what 'is' means.

Larme, your arguement rests that we should not read rules to be absurd.

I disagree, and think that a game company to which I pay money for a product should not allow for rules to be read to be absurd.

I'm not telling people they can't house rule. But I'm saying that it's totally possible to interpret the RAW to where it's perfectly fine, non-broken, and doesn't need a house rule. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or fix it if you want, but it's really not necessary

@Tarantula: Then don't buy it? Go play another game? Doesn't matter to me. If you want to do something about it, send Catalyst an email to make sure they're aware of the problem, and then maybe they'll fix it in subsequent printings or an errata or an FAQ. Hell, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to send you back a quasi-official ruling on it. And I'm pretty confident they'll say exactly what I've been saying, because they also don't want to read their own rules absurdly, and didn't intend them to be read that way.

But my take is this: I play Shadowrun for the setting and the new and improved streamlined system. I don't wring my hands about technical imperfections. They aren't even speed bumps for me. The only reason I'm even aware of them is that people on Dumpshock look for ways to read the rules absurdly so they can whinge about how badly written the game is. But for me, it's an easy question: do I want an absurd game? No. So will I pay any deference to absurd readings of the rules? No. They are irrelevant. I read the rules in the sanest manner I can, and usually that solves the whole problem, and I get on with it.

You could just as easily say that as a taxpayer, you don't want your taxes to support shoddily written laws that can be read absurdly. But do those get written all the freakin' time? Yep. What can you do about it? Write your congressman, picket, whatever. But what do you accomplish by being angsty about it? Jack-all. And that's all there is to it. And you don't even get a CHOICE whether to pay your taxes, you go to jail if you don't. At least Catalyst isn't forcing you to buy all their books if you hate them so much. Though I would posit that if you keep buying the books, you probably don't hate them, you just like to complain about technical imperfections, and writing a game where you couldn't find something to complain about would be a feat not yet accomplished by humankind.

Larme: Why do you come here then? Most of us come here to discuss various aspects of Shadowrun. This can include among other things house rules, problems with the system, problems with the setting, as well as all types of discussion on the many and varied aspects of Sixth World life. All this on top of any discussion that may be about actual RAW or canon questions. You seem obsessed with trying to shut down, or at least dominate discussion, and not just in this thread, with your pronouncements of RAW (as you see it) and there being only one way to read things, to the point of being insulting.

I come here to torch the unbelievers with searing hot flames of argument!

But seriously, it's nice that you can declare the purpose of the forum, and cast my arguments as generally unfounded because they're just my opinion, but it has no bearing on me. The forum is what you make of it. For me, I argue against people that I disagree with. There is a lot of knee-jerk nerf-batting, a lot of needless hostility to what I see as a fundamentally good system, and a lot of bad ideas, and I derive satisfaction from opposing those things. If you think I'm breaking any forum rules, go ahead and report me and see if I get banned. But until that happens, I'm going to keep on voicing my opinions. Make of that what you will. If posting sound arguments that people are generally unable to refute is dominating, then I intend to dominate my lil' heart out.

And actually, one of my central arguments in this and almost every RAW discussion I have engaged in is that THERE IS NOT ONE WAY TO READ THINGS. I crusade against those who say there is only one way to read things, because they are often advocating for absurd readings, which they then used to "prove" that the system is broken, which is totally unjustifiable. As I've said time and again, you can always read things more than one way. And people on Dumpshock tend to find the most absurd, broken, bad reading they can, then use this to shit on the system. I provide a counterpoint: just because you can read the rules in an absurd way doesn't mean you should. Nobody, not even the game's detractors, want to play the game absurdly, so why do they sit on their crazy interpretations like mother hens on eggs? Because they want to complain and whinge and generally make the game look bad. I fundamentally disagree with those tactics, and with the suggestion that the game is of poor quality, and I'm not going to stay quiet when people try to get away with that shit.

I see. Well, thanks for making my point.

As I recall, you didn't make a point, you candidly asked me to fuck off. And I said no, in a long winded fashion.

If that is an example of your self-proclaimed reading comprehension skills, then that explains a great deal. Have a nice day.

Edit: Nice edit!