Not only do you take the internet seriously, you know how I feel about you better than I do. You are awesome.

Thanks.

Some things might seem obvious to some, but are not always obvious to all. I believe that when a significant number of people argue about something - especially something fairly basic -, then the language used should be clarified or the issue should be addressed in FAQ.

Larme, we all argue, bitch and complain because we absolutely love the game and want to make it better for everyone. No need to be hatin'...

I'm not hatin'. I see a post that tickles my funny bone, I respond as such, without regard to whether that person thinks I have it out for them or not. The intertron is not supposed to be a serious place, and I think people should be able to poke fun at each other without someone crying foul.

The quote is the weapon line for the hardliner gloves. It doesn't say "hardliner glove" it says "Hardliner Gloves". By RAW there is no way to purchase a single hardliner glove, much as there is no way to purchase only the sleeve of an armor jacket.

OH MY GOD! RAW also doesn't say how to eat! Now everyone is dead because we can't eat...
Seriously...

Actually, RAW doesn't tell you how to eat, but it also doesn't make you die from not eating... so we're fine.

Well, damn...
You just won the internet...

I believe this whole big slide started with Fortune arguing that the FAQ should make it explicit that you can't use Two Weapon Style with weapons using Unarmed Combat (e.g. shock gloves and hardliner gloves). Now some say it's obvious that it doesn't apply, but we've all seen people who think it applies. So I'm not sure I understand the opposition to making it explicit in the FAQ. If we all agree that it doesn't make sense, then what are we arguing about exactly? If the rules can be made clearer, why wouldn't we want that? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyways...

I agree with Tarantula that you should only be able to get the advantages of two weapon style with two pairs of hardliner gloves.

This is yet another reason why quad-armed cyberzombies are made of win.

Boy, I really came in late to the thread ...

Yes and no. The 4IP guy can borrow the same number of actions as the 1IP guy, but the 4IP guy recovers 4 times as fast. It's hard to get things done by just reacting to others actions.

By the way, to add to kindling to fire (concerning the definition of "ext available action").
Page 132 - Begin Action Phase. - A character has up to 3 actions per action phase (one free action and 2 simple actions). So, I go Full Defense and shoot you twice because I only gave up my next available free action ...

So how do you feel about a one-armed guy using one Hardliner Glove?

How about a one-armed Adept using one enchanted Hardliner Glove Weapon Focus?

On borrowing actions, I would rule the maximum number of outstanding actions you may have is equal to one-half Reaction, round up. For example, a 5 Reaction individual would be able to interrupt 3 times, after which he cannot do anything. At his next action, he may not do anything, but his outstanding actions drops to 2. He may take another interrupt action, bringing his outstanding back up to the 3 maximum, but must still wait 2 turns (assuming no more interrupts) before he can take a normal action.

Standard movement does not take an action.

On Shock Gloves & Hardliners being a weapon or weapons, I would rule that anything using the Unarmed Combat skill is technically regarded as unarmed (aka neither are weapons). As for how the guard you are trying to get past regards them however...

On Two-Weapon Style & Unarmed Combat, I can see the issues people have with it. Myself however, do not see an issue allowing someone to split their dice pool to attack twice with Unarmed Combat - you do have more than one natural weapon after all, and so do not see why Two-Weapon Style cannot be applied. It's not all that different from carrying a sword & dagger to go on permanent full defense.

Better question:
How do you feel about Hardliner Gloves being enchanted as one weapon and adding it's bonus in full to both dice pools when two-weapon fighting?

Except they can be enchanted as Weapon Foci.



But if you allow Unarmed Combat to apply to Two-Weapon Style, a person is pretty much never in a position to not use Full Defense. At least with a sword and dagger, or two knives, the character could be disarmed. In my opinion, it's pure cheese!

Shrug. I'm the one that originally started this weird crap by advocating that Two-Weapon Style be clarified to deny its use in conjunction with Unarmed Combat (which I cannot believe anyone that agrees with my position would argue so vehemently against). Glyph has pretty much agreed with me, so I think it should be pretty obvious.

Actually, you have a lot of natural weapons. 2 fists, 2 elbows, 2 knees, 2 feet, and 1 head (not recommended). Can I make 9 unarmed combat attacks per round? (I'm trying to eat through my riposting opponent's interrupt actions to get a few turns of freebies.)

I wasn't actually directing it at you, more following up on your post. For the record, I think you should be able to use two-weapon style with unarmed combat. I just don't agree that hardliner gloves (1 pair) are one weapon.

So you not only think Hardliner Gloves counts as two weapons, but you think it is fine to use Unarmed Combat with the Two-Weapon Style maneuver? Well, it's your game, but I don't believe that should be canon (at least the latter part).

As for those that think you need a pair of Hardliners to be able to use them, what about if Bruce Campbell's Ash wanted to slip on one glove on the hand without the chainsaw. Would he not get any benefit when punching zombies?

It may not be, but I wasn't refering to RAW. Martial Arts deals with defending against and attacking multiple opponents. It seems to make sense to reflect this with the Two-Weapon Style "Maneuver".

Being serious again, I wouldn't allow people to get away with using gauntlets, shock gloves, or hardliner gloves with two-weapon style. If you use the unarmed combat skill to use a weapon, it doesn't fall under two-weapon style in my opinion.

From a logical perspective, unarmed combat can generally be considered to use both hands (as well as other body parts) by default.

From a game balance perspective, I don't want to see someone taking 10 points of boxing, 10 points of kempo, 5 points of kung fu, and 5 points of kickboxing, for +6 to their blocking, and then adding full defense on top of that. Plus, as you already pointed out, Fortune, it would let unarmed people use full defense all the time.

I would see no problem with someone using only one shock glove, hardliner glove, etc. So what if you can only purchase them in pairs? Nothing stopping you from wearing just one of them. I might consider something like a 1 die penalty for someone trying to get the benefit of the glove, since they are limiting themselves to one striking arm to do so.

You should still be able to do it, though, or your character will be like Michael Jackson or the Seattle Mariners... wearing a glove on one hand for no apparent reason.

That's pretty much my take on it, although I don't think I would do the penalty thing unless it was a very special case.

Again, by RAW you aren't able to, as they are a singular item. It'd be like wanting to buy/wear half of an armor jacket. It doesn't exist as far as RAW is concerned. Either you have "hardliner gloves" or you don't. There is no one glove per RAW.

As such, unless you buy and use two "hardliner gloves" you don't qualify for the two-weapon style maneuver. I wouldn't mind if they clear it up and said "only for the blades/clubs/etc skills" or "can't be used with unarmed combat".

I am a hardcore rules monger, but that is just taking it to far. That's like saying you cannot take a piss because it's not in the books. You really do not have any concept of role playing do you? You cannot have an armored jacket with it's sleeves cut off by the book, but because it fits the character, someone in the game I am currently in has exactly that.

I said per RAW you couldn't. Not that you couldn't ever possibly have such a thing and that you'll be struck down if you do.

And yet you still have not provided a quote that states anything like what you propose. There are rules that describe just how to use the stats of a single limb when only that one limb is used, which means it is indeed a viable option to choose to use only one arm when trying to accomplish something. I don't really care how you personally run your games, but you keep insisting that this is a case of 'Rules As Written', and there are no written rules concerning this in SR4.

Saying it over and over won't make it true. There is only one quote to give: the gloves are listed as a pair. There are no Rules as Written about how to buy just one glove. The only Rules as Written about using just one arm for an attack are in the cyberlimbs section. You could buy a single glove, and fight with just one glove, but you'd need to make up rules for it. Nobody's saying that you couldn't make up the rules easily. Just cut the price in half. But as written, there's nothing.

I think the real clincher is that no matter how many gloves you wear, you're using the unarmed skill. If you count as unarmed while wearing the gloves, how can you also count as wielding weapons? Wielding weapons makes you armed, right? Ergo, the gloves must not be weapons, but are in fact just enhancements for your unarmed combat. Really I think the whole "they come as a pair" thing is just Tarantula's rules lawyering gambit to annoy you, and it looks like it worked

May all your characters be stranded in the desert where there are no rules for drinking but the rules for dehydrating are on page 163 of Arsenal.


Try that with Shock Gloves and Shock Frills, but take a look at Arsenal pages 172-173 if you want to be a rules lawyer about it. Hardliner Gloves are under the Heading of Exotic Melee Weapon. Shock Gloves and Shock Frills are listed under Unarmed.

Your stipulation is that if I wear two hardliners, I get the bonus even if for some reason (ie, I am holding something), I am only using one hand but if I only have one on one hand because maybe the character only has one arm, I get no bonus? I suppose characters have to fire 10 rounds from their Ares Predators in order to deal 5P damage because there's no entry for 1 round of ammunition.

Once again: he's saying there's no RAW on the issue, not that you can't do anything that RAW doesn't provide rules for. Of course you can. It's just not following the RAW at that point.

This thread convinced me to change two-weapon fighting into a purely stylish choice. Problem solved.

Strictly speaking, by "using" two hardliner gloves you would be eligible for the bonus. For all I know, you have one pair on, and are holding the other in your hand, and are parrying the attacks with your held pair of gloves.

Do you also rule that a person with a shock hand included in his cyberarm must wear some kind of glove on the other hand in order to use that hand in melee to full effect? Seems that there is some canon precedent for using a single limb in melee, therefore there is no reason why a person could not wear and effectively utilize a single Hardliner Glove.

Its a shock hand. Not shock hands.

The reason someone can't wear and utilize a single hardliner glove, is because a single glove doesn't exist by RAW. A single shock hand does exist by RAW. As does a single cyberarm (for leading attacks with) or a single spur. You can't get just one finger hand razored though, you get all 5, or none.

"In maiore minus". You can choose to get less.

Here's another way to approach the next available actions debate.

Assuming your group just rolled initiative and no one has acted, the GM asks each player how many actions they have available. The players say, all of them (free, simple/complex). The GM says no, I just want to know how many complex actions you have available for this combat turn.

Does everyone say, infinite as long as someone attacks me and get a success riposte? Or does everyone look at their IPs and answer based on that?

No, that isn't even what that principle says. To use it, there are 2 gloves, therefore, there is also one glove. But, as far as the rules are concerned, there is one item, which we happen to describe as a pair of gloves. Which makes having only one glove not RAW.

What about if someone may or maynot spend edge depending on how well the combat is going? Or what about people with combat drugs, who may or may not choose to take them?

Not to mention mages astrally projecting.

Good response, actually. But, edge and combat drugs still have finite upper bounds. And everything else in the rules throws down a hard cap of 4IPs per combat turn...

But back to the original question, Tarantula. What would YOU respond, if say you had a character with Wired 2, 3 points of Edge, some combat drugs and riposte available? Would you tell your GM 3 complex actions or would you give him 3 or 4 sentences?

Spending edge is the only way to gain a pass during a current combat turn.

Any gain in passes (Astrally projecting or switching to hot-sim, or injecting drugs) don't take effect until the next turn. Any drop in passes though is taken into account as soon as you switch.

So the correct answer is: IP's + 1 (if use edge) + 1 (if interrupt on the last pass of this turn)

Uh... I buy the pair. I throw one glove away. I have one glove. I can, by RAW, have one glove.

This is a silly question even if there were no interrupt actions, drugs and edge can increase IP, but the character can't use it because he didn't provide for it in his answer?
And what about our gun bunny? "I have no complex actions available, I have 8 simple ones though..."
And for the umptieth time, there are no infinite actions!!!
There is a theoretical infinity that is based on 2 false assumptions:
1. You can get attacked by an infinite number of people in 1 round...
2. You can block/parry all these attacks to qualify for riposte...

But I have said all this before and should have probably kept quiet...

But RAW doesn't provide rules for throwing things away...

Exactly!

Even if the "item" was destroyed, it'd be both gloves, not just one, as both gloves are one "item".

Are you claiming you cannot simply decide to wear one glove? Would you actually rule that if a player character was jumped with one glove off, to use a fingerprint scanner, he could not use the shock glove or lined glove while the cyberarm mod was usable?

/boggle.

Well, if you want me to get technical, he'd have to take off both his gloves to use the fingerprint scanner, since the gloves are a singular item.

You can make that argument. And here's where it leads you: neither a glove on your hand that shocks people, nor even a cuff on your jacket that shocks people, is a weapon. BUT a pair of normal gloves with hard plates on the fists totally count as weapons. It's not a terribly sturdy argument, and it leads to a very nonsensical and incongruous result. But if you want to play the silly way, go right ahead I'm pretty sure you don't, however, and you're just playing sophist



NOW you're just being annoying! I know that when you GM, you don't tell the player that their two gloves are one item, which must be equipped and removed as a pair, as if we were playing Diablo. You're just messing with people who, for some reason, think you're being serious, despite you making a very silly argument just for fun

Thats a perfect analogy. They are like a pair of gloves in diablo. Completely unable to be separated into a singular glove while following RAW.

Right, and since we're not playing Diablo, we do not, and should not follow RAW on this particular point.

Okay...my question was silly, I admit it. When I first thought of the question, its seemed straightforward enough. I was thinking about my table and if I went around to the four players and asked them this, I'd get responses like 3, 3, 3, and 3 (everyone's wired 2 or has a focus-sustained spell). They normally don't use edge or combat drugs...so my bad for thinking of this in a closed box scenario.

But, your response brought up another point or two.

What is the limit of being attacked in 1 round? I'm not aware of one. I've always like the idea of 6 (using a hex map, there are six sides), although someone with increased reach could be on a non-adjacent hex. There is still a limit there, but I'd think it would be over 10 people, but that is assuming no movement...anyways, you have a definite idea in your head, and I must have missed it.

And why can't someone block/parry all these attacks? Is it because of DP penalties? Even at 0 DP, there is some argument that a longshot test could be used to at least attempt it.

That'd make your maximum ripostes per combat turn of (max reaction) + (max armed weapon skill) + (max defensive pool modifiers (things like combat sense and such) + misc modifiers (martial arts bonuses) + (max edge). It still has an absolute cap.

RAW, there is no limit on the number of melee attackers, But I would walk away from a game where the GM is likely to say "All right the 324h ganger that attacks you with his tire iron..."
And, as you said, using a map (of any kind, even like our handdrawn one with the players being dice), can't fit more than 6-8 melee enemies there, range 2+ could be used, but that still is far from unlimited...

True, longshots can be used, with an absolute limit of 8 longshots (unless edge refreshes within a combat round)...
Still seems very far from unlimited to me...


NOW, as Nightwalker450 said, this could theoretically still lead to a 1 IP guy borrowing action he doesn't get for another 15 second...
And actually I could see this happening rather easily...
Guy gets attacked by 3 gangers, get initiative, attacks and follows up, 1 ganger goes down...
Ganger 3 attacks, block reposte, finish, ganger -> down, same for ganger 3...
Great, you wiped the floor with 3 gangers, which you should have done anyway...
If they were 3 1IP adepts, you'd be dead by now...
So a 1 IP melee spec runner surrounded by 6 gangers, might handle it (if they had 1 IP), be in trouble (If they all had 2 IPs), likely die (If they have 3 IPs), go the way of the dodo (If they have 4 IPs)...
With 4 IPs, things would look much much better for our runner...
So even with these overpowered, makes-neo-look-like-droopy, time twisting manouvers, IPs still matter, runners still have to be smart and runners can still die...
Limiting it because you think people cannot borrow actions from 15 minutes in the future, only 3 or 6 or whatever, no problem, but don't say you're doing it because infinite actions are overpowered...
(Well, infinite actions are overpowered...)
I can reply to this limit, but those would then be my feeling on the subject, nothing else...