You don't mean to, but ....

I'm afraid your argument is totally erroneous. You're saying that they're not the same because two different things can't be the same thing. That's irrelevant. What I'm saying is that you can't know what RAW says unless you interpret it. Let's write it as a logical formula:

IF the rules as written must be interpreted to be understood,

AND IF understanding the rules as written is a prerequisite to using the rules as written,

THEN you must interpret the rules as written to use the rules as written.

So semantically, sure, interpreting RAW is not the same thing as RAW, because two things that are different are indeed not the same. That's a red herring and/or straw man. The fact is, interpreting RAW is something you have to do. You can't say "you're going outside raw because you're interpreting it." That would imply that nobody can ever use RAW ever. RAW must be interpreted to be understood. The same is true of all language. It doesn't matter what people say if you can't understand what they mean. And you must interpret what they say before you can understand what they mean. Now you get it?

The only beef I have is we are all debating the RAW without any of us having an actual definition of "next available action". I think this is still the root of the problem in any debate about how interrupt options can be used.

He wouldn't just stand there. I would describe it as something akin to being winded from such an exertion, and as such be unable to take any simple or complex actions until he recovered (caught up his passes).



Your logic is incorrect, the rules don't equal meanings, they follow from them. A -> B and A -> C does not mean B = C.

If multiple interpretations of the same thing are valid, then you can't use RAW. I what he was trying to say. You interpret it one way, we interpret another your way is not more or less valid than ours.

And deek sums up what we're interpreting.

Yes, that's the root of the problem. "Next available action" is not defined, so we have to decide what it means. Does it mean "next" as in the common use of the word, or does it mean "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" as some are arguing?



I don't think I tried to state any categorical rule that all possible interpretations of anything are valid... In fact I'm very sure I didn't. There are valid interpretations, which I would define as meanings which can be reasonably derived from the language used. And then there are invalid inerpretations, which are of course those meanings that are not reasonably derived from the language used. If I say "good day," you can reasonably understand that I mean the day is good, or the day makes me feel good, or it is a day to be good upon. But you could not reasonably infer that I only think the day is good as long as the sun shines. You could intuit that, or arbitrarily make it up, but you wouldn't be interpreting my words, you'd be inventing things in your own head.

The problem, as I see it, is that "next within an arbitrary parcel of game time" is not an interpretation suggested by RAW. There are arguments for using it, but it feels more like a house rule. Nothing in the RAW suggests that "next" means "next within the following turn." I really don't see how you get that from just the word "next." Or take the whole phrase, "next available." What makes an action in the next combat turn available, but not one three combat turns away? Nothing at all. You can play it your way, but I prefer to follow the plain meaning of the words, which allows infinite interrupts. You have stated realism reasons why you don't like that, but that does not marshall the RAW in your favor one iota.

Larme...its doesn't say "next action". It says "next available action". That means there has to be a difference between next and next available. One interpretation is that initiative would need to be rolled in order to give a player "available actions"...

Its "next available" is whatever action you would be able to act during next
or
"next available" is your next action has to be available for you to use it.



The fact that its 3 combat turns away.

Well, that was sort of what I was getting at. A does not equal B or C in the first place. So it is possible to have several clashing interpretations of RAW that are all compatible with RAW, but aren't RAW themselves. And yeah, in terms of interpreting RAW, the root of the problem, as deek said, is the interpretation of "next available action".

Personally, I'm not really as concerned about understanding RAW as I am about finding a rule that works though. The way RAW are written, as I've been saying from the beginning, I think it *does* allow for borrowing more than one IP. Whether that was intended by the developers, I have no clue.

I offered one interpretation of next available action. When the characters AP next comes up.

For a 1 IP character, it would be in IP 1, during AP (His initiative result) of every combat turn.

For a 3 IP character, it would be in IP 1, 2, and 3 during AP (His initiative result) of every combat turn.

And so on.

Are you kidding me? So 1 is available, 2, 3, 4, etc, are not? You have chosen an arbitrary number to define available. You have almost literally pulled it out of thin air. How is that interpreting RAW? The word "available" does not have the meaning you suggest. The RAW does not put forth the meaning you suggest. You have crafted it out of whole cloth. There is no logical reason why 1 turn away is available, but 2 is not. Your logic does not suggest a reason why the number should be 2. Because you're setting an arbitrary point, it could logically be 22, or 222, or any random number you care to use. There are realism reasons to use 2, but those are not part of RAW. Those are your personal preference. That's a house rule.

Let's stop playing king of the RAW hill. You don't need to win the RAW to play it your way. I can clearly see that you prefer to play it your way. I have no interest in stopping you. But I'm not going to let you confuse teh noobz by telling them that your house rule is RAW, because it clearly isn't. Play your way and have fun, just recognize when you're making things up based on your own personal preferences.

Right, but that's at least not what Nightwalker wants. He wants the next turn. This interpretation says you can't borrow unless you have an action left in the current turn. I think that's a valid reading of "next available." But as we've discussed, I dislike it for other reasons. Allowing infinite interrupts is supported by RAW, and it's not broken PROVIDED that you accept that defense penalties don't reset every time you riposte. So there is no reason for requiring the next available action to be in the same turn, except if you really want to make things tough for people with low IPs and change riposte from a useful, not broken manuever, to possibly the dumbest thing ever.

I don't want next turn, I want next action. I have proposed a house rule before for those who would want more than 1 interrupt. But overall I support only 1 interrupt per action. And my interpretation of RAW supports it. You can't win this, and neither can I because we are both interpreting a line that noone but the developers know. I hope they know the definition at least, but considering noone has gotten an email reply and none of them have ever commented on this, they might not. (There's always the chance interrupts are an April Fools Joke?)

Once an arsenal FAQ, or erratta comes out we'll know. But they're pretty tied up it seems, and overall Unwired is more important to me than this.

EDIT: Fixed pass to action, since referring to pass confuses things

Night, adding "turn" or "pass" onto the sentence is applying your house rule to it. It says the next available action, and does not give any unit of measure. Adding a unit of measure is adding to the RAW, and creating a house rule. Its not an interpretation.

Bleh my bad, I consider pass and action the same thing, but considering all character can't act on all passes, then action is more appropriate than pass (otherwise you could effectively borrow passes you normally wouldn't act during).

So it would be your next action you could borrow, only if it is available... Or "Next available action". If you have already borrowed an action it is no longer available. That is the interpretation. It is not reliant on combat turns, or number of passes, just that you haven't borrowed an action yet, and thus your next action is available.

Tarantula has it. Next available isn't specific to one pass in the future. If you interrupted 299 times, your next available action would be 300 passes away. There's nothing about the number 300 that makes it not available anymore. Or any number. According to common usage of the English language, "next available" does not mean "next available within one pass." Have fun with your house rule, I hope it works for you

Night, you almost have a point. It is not your next action only, and also only if it is available. It is your next action that is available.

I don't think many people would agree with the assertion that "next available action" means that. The normal way to say what you are trying to mean would be "next action, if available"

No, but as they have led us to believe page space is at a premium "next available action" = 21 characters and "next action, if available" = 25 characters... And literary or english majors I doubt they are, so the phrasing isn't going to be the best. The fact that one is shorter and slides easier off the tongue could be the reason for accepting that way of writing it. And for something that is going to be written and rewritten in multiple sections it reads easier as "next available action".

I've been trying to come up with an example of this and really its difficult to do. Unfortunately the best I can come up with is a computer process (I'm a programmer ), and as computer processes go you can write them however you want.

You grab the "Next available file", the files are all tied up, so there is no "Next available file", so you get no file. It doesn't sit there and spin, until someone releases a file, or another file comes along, its done.
likewise
You try and use your "Next available action", your next action is tied up, so there is no "Next available action", so you get no interrupt.


But mostly something you'd normally do in 3 minutes, I don't feel should be available to you. Acting 3/4 of a second sooner than usual, or even 3 seconds sooner than usual, thats close enough to suspend belief. I'd rather have them just be able to take as many interrupts as they want and just have to skip 1 action, rather then this borrowing of multiples. At least then they aren't sitting around for a long while afterwards, and the person with 4 IP's still has a distinct advantage over the person with 1 IP. Just have to make it clear Finishing Move doesn't repeat. That and I don't have to keep track of how many passes out they've borrowed.

If it works for you, then it works for you. There's not much more to be said on it.

Just to be an ass, I'm going to point out another possible interpretation of "next available action".

It uses the next action you would normally be able to take. But because it is now a used action, it no longer qualifies as available, and cannot be used to interrupt, causing your interrupt uses the action after it, and so on. This means using an interrupt action, ever, takes up all future actions.

Ok here's the best the book has to support my own.



So to me that reads that you can pull one action ahead. And it specifically says the first action of the next Combat Turn, next available action there. So if you don't have an action that pass, you instead sacrifice the first one of the next turn. Unfortunately this is before they introduced other interrupt actions, and it doesn't have the extra sentence on the page that actually talks about Full Defense as an interrupt action. So there's some RAW support for my interpretation of next available action. And I've pointed out its own short-comings, but overall its a tip on the scales in the right direction.

Except, in this case, there is an infinite amount of available files (since time is infinite), and as such, there is always another one that is available to be used.




Well, argueably, it always uses the first action of the combat turn following it. So your 4IP samurai can attack first get attacked by the ganger, use full defense (sacrificing his first action next combat turn) and then attack 3 more times before he loses his action. I don't think thats a very good explanation either.

I don't think that 4IP example works. The 4IP guy, after acting once in pass 1, would sacrifice his action in pass 2 (which is HIS next available action). In pass 2, it sounds like he is either stuck in full defense until pass 3, or he can attempt to interrupt in pass 2 with his 3rd pass action.

The example is giving that 1IP guy a chance to use his action in the next combat turn to go full defense. He'd likely then be full defense until the 3rd combat turn.

All in all, I think the info that nightwalker450 pulled up, complicates things even more:) It sets a precedent for players borrowing an action in an combat turn that has yet to be rolled (debunking my initial theories) but also seems to imply that an interrupt is only happening one time and it not repeatable (debunking the initial theory of infinite interrupts). Or at least that is what I am reading into the example.

It is important to note this example was out before the arsenal rules...so those can just continue to confuse this issue:)

For a slightly different approach, tell me if you think I'm in error

-Finishing Move was developed and used by people with 1 IP, before there were any sources of extra IPs
-You can use Finishing Move if you only have 1 IP
-Therefor actions in another combat turn are available actions

It doesn't always use the first action of the following combat turn, only if you are unable to act during the current pass. (Which would be you don't have enough passes to act any more during this turn, otherwise you are just holding an action)




Exactly he is in full defense until his 3rd pass, unless he interrupts. This is the way I've been interpreting it...



Since he only has 1 pass per turn, yes he would be in full defense until 3rd combat turn.



Exactly. It allows people with 1 IP to interrupt (pulling from the next combat turn), as well as keeps people from pulling multiples.



As I stated this was a short coming of it. At the time Full Defense was the only Interrupt Action (at least that I've found). With the introduction of more, there are more options.

I hadn't read his full quote really, was posting in kind of a hurry. My example is wrong, I didn't realize the text specified who doesn't have any more actions that pass.

You can't interrupt more than once with anything but riposte. You can go on full defense, which lasts until your next action. So, you can only ever interrupt to go on full defense once, at most. You can use finishing move, after a successful attack, which takes an action (or riposte) to initiate, so finishing move can only ever have you borrow one pass.

Riposte lets you get ahead and borrow anywhere from 1 - however big your dice pool is for melee defense. Which is limited by how stupid enemies are, and how good you are. I don't think its particularly balance breaking, nor is it ever going to come up unless you give a riposting player waves of idiots to attack.

I recommended house ruling that you can only go up to one action into the next round with interrupt actions - otherwise, you can end up with ludicrous situations where someone with IP "borrows" umpteen actions, then stands there vibrating for 3 minutes after the combat is done.

Take someone with 1 IP, and the riposte and finishing move maneuvers. He gets attacked, uses an interrupt action for full defense, then uses riposte to counterattack, then uses finishing move to attack yet again. And if two other people attack him, he can do the same thing. Suddenly, this guy with 1 IP is getting 6 attacks, yet still getting the benefits of full defense.

Personally, I would find that ridiculous even for someone with 4 IP - a combat round isn't that long, and it's inconsistent to be so emphatic that 4 IP are the most anyone can get, ever, but then to allow people to "borrow" multiple actions. I think they didn't really consider the full implications of some of the maneuvers. Hopefully they will fix it in the errata (and hopefully they will fix emotitoys, while they are at it).

No, he would be able to move, even at a run. An he would be able to do any of the other things allowable with a Free Action.

Things I think need to be clarified in Errata/FAQ ...

- Finishing Move does not trigger Finishing Move
- Riposte cannot be triggered from Full Defense.
- DV bonus limited to Skill level

That's pretty much it as far as I am concerned.

Yes, you can still move and take free actions - that was more of an attempt at humor than accuracy.

That's actually a pretty good set of rule fixes. I would probably add:

- Finishing move cannot be triggered from a riposte.

Also, I would probably limit the DV bonus even further, to +2 DV. That essentially lets a Strength: 1 human hit as hard as a Strength: 6 human, so it's plenty. Letting martial arts have the same effect as an adept maxing out his critical strike is a bit overpowered to me.

And I would still limit the number of borrowed actions, because some of the maneuvers (disarm when combined with one of the Arnis De Mano advantages, throw) let you actually do damage while on full defense.

I agree with you on the lower DV limit, but I don't think the Errata/FAQ will limit it that much (if at all).

I don't mind Riposte triggering Finishing Move. I would even allow that same character to then declare something like Full Defense right afterward (hence borrowing even further into the future). It just doesn't trouble me.

I might also add ...

- Two Weapon Style cannot be use in conjunction with Unarmed Combat.

I'm fairly certain unarmed combat attacks don't count as having a "melee weapon in his off hand."

Yeah, two weapon style requires two weapons. I don't think you need to add that as a house rule, because unarmed combat is defined as no weapons at all... If you have 0 weapons, 1 weapon, or any fraction thereof, then you don't have two weapons

Actually I think that maneuver specifically excludes Unarmed Combat. Or maybe that was just the off-hand maneuver.

Stick your tongue out all you want, but if we are being technical, then Hardliner Gloves are considered to be weapons. I have seen a number of character builds on the boards since Arsenal's release that use this exact loophole to give their Unarmed Combat masters permanent Full Defense. As such, I would rather have that cleared up, and since I described the list as things I think need clarification, I believe it fits right in.

Off-Hand Training has that restriction (on top of listing the appropriate skill categories of Blades, Clubs, and Exotic Melee weapons), but Two-Weapon Style has no such limitation.

Wrong, they are a singular weapon. You can't wear two pairs of the gloves, so you still can't meet the requirements.

So if I wear one glove, am I wearing half a weapon?

Technically if you wear one glove, you're wearing no weapons, because their DV is specified as a pair :3

Really? Can you give me a quote? Here, I'll help ...



Note that at no time does it state that a pair must be worn. At no time does it state that an unarmed strike using these gloves must use both hands, if indeed two gloves are worn. In fact, you'll note that it doesn't actually state that the hands themselves must be used in the strike (due to the abstract nature of the Shadowrun combat system), merely that wearing the gloves is enough to gain a bonus to Unarmed Combat.

But I'll give you another example of a Unarmed Combat weapon ... the Shock Glove.



Note that these are also described as being a pair, but few if any GMs would require characters to make two separate tests to determine whether both hands hit so that the attack can be considered successful. Indeed, at no point does it say that both gloves must be brought into play at the same time in order for the weapon's effects to be triggered.

No one said there would be two separate tests. The point is that you can't have 2 pairs of the gloves on at once. You can't not wear a pair, as the item is "Hardliner Gloves". Thusly, you either have a pair on, or you don't but you can't buy just one, as one is not a listed item.

Just using ONE weapon, does not meet the requirements for the two weapon style feet, requiring TWO weapons to be in use.

Lol, you are silly. If you want to wear two gloves, and claim that they count as weapons allowing you to use two weapon defense, even though your bare hands would not, go ahead. You might face some skeptical GMs, but that's your problem. It's no skin off my ass

Fortune doesn't support that position himself - he wants it officially clarified so that other people won't try to weasel their way into having hardliner gloves or shock gloves be counted as "two weapons". Considering that this is something that they actually did have to address in the SR3 FAQ, I don't find that unreasonable.

Unless they buy two pairs, and take the -2 for offhand weapon, then it isn't 2 weapons.

I don't think they had to address it. They were just tired of people beating their brains out on dumpshock over a very simple common sense problem. For me, the clincher is that you don't use a weapon skill for gloves, you use the unarmed skill. If you still count as unarmed while wearing gloves, no matter what bonuses the gloves give to your unarmed combat, you're still unarmed. You can split hairs all you like, but all it's likely to earn you is GM laughter/annoyance, depending on if your GM has a sense of humor or not.

You might try actually reading what people write. This particular side discussion began because I want it clarified that Two-Weapon Style is not usable with Unarmed Combat. As I said, I don't believe it works that way, but I have seen several people that do indeed think that using Hardliner Gloves or the like enables them to gain permanent Full Defense when using this Maneuver. As this one particualr aspect troubles me, I added it to my personal list of things that I want clarified in an errata or FAQ.

But thanks for deliberately twisting my words in an attempt to make me look like a munchkin. Have a nice day.

Incidentally, I am still awaiting a quote which states that both gloves must be worn in order to gain the DV bonus. Or a quote that states that both gloves must be worn to actually count as a weapon at all. Or even a quote where it mentions that only wearing one glove reduces the benefit. Or any quote that backs up your point in any way.

I believe that if a one-armed person wearing his sole Hardliner Glove chose to hit someone in the head (with his single arm wearing a single glove), then he would still benefit from the DV bonus. Can anyone provide any kind of book quote that refutes this?

You pegged me. I hate you so much I actually do my best to make you look dumb.

Except not. It's called it's just an internet forum, I don't always devote all my time and attention to it, and I make mistakes like everyone else. I actually don't give two yen about you or how you look. Thanks for taking the internet seriously.

Can you provide a method for him to buy and use only one glove? It doesn't exist. You get 2 gloves, or 0 gloves, not one. The fact that 2 gloves count as one "item" which is also a weapon is the key to the arguement.

All right...
Mr. Only-got-a-left-hand goes to his buddy Mr. Only-got-a-right-hand, they buy a pair, each gets the one they can use and split the cost down the middle...
There, it worked, they each bought one (1) glove...

Well, the easy way would be to buy two gloves, put one on, and then throw the other one away. Of course, you could go the Michael Jackson route and get them custom made using the Weapon Modification rules. Or, any other way. I don't see this as a valid point, as there are many ways to purchase and use one glove.



In what way?

I have asked for a quote citing relevance more than once, with none coming in response. Exactly how does canon differentiate between using one hand in Unarmed Combat or using two? Is there a canon penalty for being only one-armed and using Unarmed Combat? Is there a quote that states that a one-armed combatant cannot use Hardliner Gloves? Any quotes at all to back up your premise that Hardliner Gloves only grant a bonus when two are worn, but do not grant a bonus for using only one? Any quote to state that any particular Unarmed Combat attack (other than stuff like Subduing) must use both hands? Or even any hands? Any quote that states that the bonus from Hardliner Gloves does not apply when kicking (silly, but still!)?

I'd be more inclined to believe it was accidental if it were the first or even second occurrence. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you utilize this argument technique a little too freely.