QUOTE (wind_in_the_stones @ Dec 23 2008, 09:29 PM) 
You guys are arguing about an argument about a moot point?
THIS
IS
DUMPSHOOOOOOOOOOCK!!!
/300
Full Version: Magic vs. Essense
THIS
IS
DUMPSHOOOOOOOOOOCK!!!
/300
It is, isn't it? I love this place and all the posters that gather here. No, really. 
What is your profession?
Rules lawyer.
Min-maxer.
Munchkin.
What is your profession?
WAR!
You see, old friend, I brought more Dumpshockers.
If Leonidas brought Dumpshockers to the battle, Xerxis would be fleeing from Bubba the Love Troll.
Rules lawyer.
Min-maxer.
Munchkin.
What is your profession?
WAR!
You see, old friend, I brought more Dumpshockers.
If Leonidas brought Dumpshockers to the battle, Xerxis would be fleeing from Bubba the Love Troll.
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 23 2008, 09:51 PM)
Problem is, you can't actually build a magician that way. Magician et al are Qualities, so they have to be taken before attributes and special attributes are, as well as skills. You're also blocking out any Qualities that affect skill/attribute costs, such as Exceptional Attribute and Aptitude.
That's why, in the words before the list, I said to separate the various magician qualities (and Technomancer) from the rest. Step 2 gives access to only those Qualities. Blocking Exceptional Attribute and Aptitude is also an objective of mine in ordering the list in that way, but I didn't mention it, as it wasn't pertinent to the conversation.
Let me try to clarify how the Rules as Written are worded, for those unable to do so themselves.
There are two types of actions in debate here. Triggered - on a trigger (in this case, loosing Essence), it activates (in this case, reducing Magic); and Passive - an "always on" feature, if something it affects changes, it applies to the changes.
Morrigana, you clearly think this is a triggered event. "If your Essence is reduced below 6, you loose Magic".
As written, it is passive. When you gain a Magic value, you check your Essence, & reduce it accordingly. Each time your Essence changes, it reduces your Magic as normal.
There is no "reasonable interpretation" required. It is, as written, very clear on how it works, and applies regardless of when you obtain your Magic attribute (barring specific exceptions).
There are two types of actions in debate here. Triggered - on a trigger (in this case, loosing Essence), it activates (in this case, reducing Magic); and Passive - an "always on" feature, if something it affects changes, it applies to the changes.
Morrigana, you clearly think this is a triggered event. "If your Essence is reduced below 6, you loose Magic".
QUOTE (Shadowrun 4 p.62)
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6
As written, it is passive. When you gain a Magic value, you check your Essence, & reduce it accordingly. Each time your Essence changes, it reduces your Magic as normal.
There is no "reasonable interpretation" required. It is, as written, very clear on how it works, and applies regardless of when you obtain your Magic attribute (barring specific exceptions).
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Dec 24 2008, 03:48 AM)
Let me try to clarify how the Rules as Written are worded, for those unable to do so themselves.
The root of the problem is still that someone (I'm not calling names. Morrigana. doh) seriously lacks the ability to understand written word. You can't fix that by writing more for that person to read. A sledgehammer to the forehead should do the trick, though.
QUOTE (Malicant @ Dec 24 2008, 10:58 AM)
The root of the problem is still that someone (I'm not calling names. Morrigana. ups) seriously lacks the ability to understand written word. You can't fix that by writing more for that person to read. A sledgehammer to the forehead should do the trick, though.
Or more in keeping with the spirit of the season, a session with Santa Bubba with his merry Elves.
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 23 2008, 08:23 PM)
There is no need to. This is the RAW literal interpretation of the text, not the reasonable interpretation of such. RAW need not necessarily reasonable but the literal wording of the rule is clear enough in this case that there is no ambigiuity.
The text clearly states that if your Essense is below 6, you lose Magic. Note that there is no timing to this rule. Therefore it is on all the time, whether now or otherwise.
The text clearly states that if your Essense is below 6, you lose Magic. Note that there is no timing to this rule. Therefore it is on all the time, whether now or otherwise.
Okay, this has been fun so far. Time to end it, though. It's beginning to get too rediculous with the resistance put up to even considering what's wrong with the logic. But first, a reiteration of the rule.
QUOTE
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essence lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. Th e maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p. 238).
Okay, under a literal interpretation of that, the extra points are just lost, along with the loss from max rating. Here's the problem with is: It's tied into essense. A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself. Thus, any magician or adept who starts the game with cyber has both a lower magic score and cap on the magic score.
The problem comes when you stop and read over the rule related to gaining magic. If someone pays the BP or karma for it, they become Awakened and, if they already have cyber, they have a reduced magic score maximum. They can't work around this maximum in chargen under the way the BBB is written, which we'll stick with for simplicity's sake. And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost. There's nothing there which states they must, nothing there which states the magic score of 1 that they paid to get will be reduced (since, technically, it already has been), and nothing there to indicate they won't be able to start the game with a magic score of 1 without spending further BP or karma beyond the normal cost to gain the magical ability to begin with. You can try to state that it will be reduced, but you still need to prove that the reduction itself is not already accounted for. Of course, post chargen, any cyberwear they get will unarguably reduce their magic score as normal.
Nothing within it states that it is active or passive, nor does anything within the wording state that this comes to apply at some later date. In fact, the way it's worded, it happens instantly and stays permanently. I'm ignoring certain work-arounds in this case for simplicity, due to what the rule was written for.
Now, the moment you argue it acts constantly as a passive change rather than a permanent one is the moment you add interpretation; there's nothing within it that states it as a passive change or one that can come around at a later date. You can argue that those points must be paid for by someone who takes a magical quality, but that is another interpretation that is not written within the rule itself. You can even attempt to argue that the loss is caused by random pixies that beat you up while you sleep at night and that you can get around it by using pixie repellant, but that is something not only not within the rule itself but also arguably deserving of whatever beating you get in real life for it.
The rule, as written, is simple: You lose essense, you lose a point of magic/resonance and your maximum magic/resonance rating lowers. It doesn't state this will happen sometime in the future when you get a magic rating and then pay it up a bit. It doesn't state you have to pay for magic points lost when you get that magic rating. It doesn't state magical pixies beat you up at night.
The problem with the rule? People trying to do things out of order in chargen (such as cybering up their characters and then going after magic) and the confusion this causes due to what the rule doesn't state.
If you have any conclusive proof to the contrary, post it. The rule itself is certainly not conclusive proof to the contrary.
QUOTE (wind_in_the_stones @ Dec 23 2008, 08:29 PM)
You guys are arguing about an argument about a moot point?
Yes.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Dec 23 2008, 08:48 PM)
Let me try to clarify how the Rules as Written are worded, for those unable to do so themselves.
There are two types of actions in debate here. Triggered - on a trigger (in this case, loosing Essence), it activates (in this case, reducing Magic); and Passive - an "always on" feature, if something it affects changes, it applies to the changes.
Morrigana, you clearly think this is a triggered event. "If your Essence is reduced below 6, you loose Magic".
As written, it is passive. When you gain a Magic value, you check your Essence, & reduce it accordingly. Each time your Essence changes, it reduces your Magic as normal.
There is no "reasonable interpretation" required. It is, as written, very clear on how it works, and applies regardless of when you obtain your Magic attribute (barring specific exceptions).
There are two types of actions in debate here. Triggered - on a trigger (in this case, loosing Essence), it activates (in this case, reducing Magic); and Passive - an "always on" feature, if something it affects changes, it applies to the changes.
Morrigana, you clearly think this is a triggered event. "If your Essence is reduced below 6, you loose Magic".
As written, it is passive. When you gain a Magic value, you check your Essence, & reduce it accordingly. Each time your Essence changes, it reduces your Magic as normal.
There is no "reasonable interpretation" required. It is, as written, very clear on how it works, and applies regardless of when you obtain your Magic attribute (barring specific exceptions).
Here's exactly what it says:
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.
Oh, and just so you know: The difference between "passive" and "trigger" is that "passive" is a type of "trigger."
QUOTE (Malicant @ Dec 23 2008, 08:58 PM)
The root of the problem is still that someone (I'm not calling names. Morrigana. doh) seriously lacks the ability to understand written word. You can't fix that by writing more for that person to read. A sledgehammer to the forehead should do the trick, though.
Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's adding words and meanings to the rule that are not there or apparently practicing creative definitions of "literal."
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 04:30 AM)
[...]It's beginning to get too rediculous with the resistance put up to even considering what's wrong with the logic.[...]
This is so beautiful. Out of context at least. In context, it's plain hilarious. I'm so exited to see how this will develope while I'm gone.
Malicant, the funny part is that this joke has four punchlines.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 23 2008, 08:30 PM)
Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.
Oh, and just so you know: The difference between "passive" and "trigger" is that "passive" is a type of "trigger."
Oh, and just so you know: The difference between "passive" and "trigger" is that "passive" is a type of "trigger."
Read the damn quote. It does not say "if your Essence is reduced below", it is saying "if your Essence is below" - there is no fucking timeframe or trigger.
And the difference between passive and trigger is:
Passive: x = 2y (explanation - y is always twice the value of x, regardless of it's value)
Trigger: if x changes, introduce a new variable (explanation - on an event, perform an action)
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Dec 23 2008, 09:49 PM)
Read the damn quote. It does not say "if your Essence is reduced below", it is saying "if your Essence is below" - there is no fucking timeframe or trigger.
Which has been my point as to what caused the confusion to begin with. There isn't a timeframe. It's an instant reaction, not something that comes about as soon as you get a magic rating, under RAW. And this created a problem when people were buying cyberwear before setting stats, when they're supposed to set stats first.
QUOTE
And the difference between passive and trigger is:
Passive: x = 2y (explanation - y is always twice the value of x, regardless of it's value)
Trigger: if x changes, introduce a new variable (explanation - on an event, perform an action)
Passive: x = 2y (explanation - y is always twice the value of x, regardless of it's value)
Trigger: if x changes, introduce a new variable (explanation - on an event, perform an action)
... You meant to tell me you do not know what a passive trigger is? The first one you listed is a passive trigger, while the second one is a different type. There's also these kinds of triggers:
Trigger: if x is reduced by n, reduce y by n as well.
Essense, in this case, is a variation on that kind of trigger.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 11:30 AM)
Okay, this has been fun so far. Time to end it, though. It's beginning to get too rediculous with the resistance put up to even considering what's wrong with the logic. But first, a reiteration of the rule.
Okay, under a literal interpretation of that, the extra points are just lost, along with the loss from max rating. Here's the problem with is: It's tied into essense. A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself. Thus, any magician or adept who starts the game with cyber has both a lower magic score and cap on the magic score.
The problem comes when you stop and read over the rule related to gaining magic. If someone pays the BP or karma for it, they become Awakened and, if they already have cyber, they have a reduced magic score maximum. They can't work around this maximum in chargen under the way the BBB is written, which we'll stick with for simplicity's sake. And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost. There's nothing there which states they must, nothing there which states the magic score of 1 that they paid to get will be reduced (since, technically, it already has been), and nothing there to indicate they won't be able to start the game with a magic score of 1 without spending further BP or karma beyond the normal cost to gain the magical ability to begin with. You can try to state that it will be reduced, but you still need to prove that the reduction itself is not already accounted for. Of course, post chargen, any cyberwear they get will unarguably reduce their magic score as normal.
Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's adding words and meanings to the rule that are not there or apparently practicing creative definitions of "literal."
Okay, under a literal interpretation of that, the extra points are just lost, along with the loss from max rating. Here's the problem with is: It's tied into essense. A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself. Thus, any magician or adept who starts the game with cyber has both a lower magic score and cap on the magic score.
The problem comes when you stop and read over the rule related to gaining magic. If someone pays the BP or karma for it, they become Awakened and, if they already have cyber, they have a reduced magic score maximum. They can't work around this maximum in chargen under the way the BBB is written, which we'll stick with for simplicity's sake. And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost. There's nothing there which states they must, nothing there which states the magic score of 1 that they paid to get will be reduced (since, technically, it already has been), and nothing there to indicate they won't be able to start the game with a magic score of 1 without spending further BP or karma beyond the normal cost to gain the magical ability to begin with. You can try to state that it will be reduced, but you still need to prove that the reduction itself is not already accounted for. Of course, post chargen, any cyberwear they get will unarguably reduce their magic score as normal.
Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's adding words and meanings to the rule that are not there or apparently practicing creative definitions of "literal."
You are right, it is ridiculous. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, it is simply the literal interpretation. You are not paying for the magic points you have lost, you are paying for the Magic points you lose as a result of Essense loss per p62. The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.
Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's apparently ignoring the literal interpretation of the RAW and apparently practicing non-literal definitions of "literal".
It seems like this comes down to a difference in interpretation of the word "is." That phrase could, I suppose, be interpreted as either "When your Essence is reduced below" or "If your Essence has been reduced below."
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 23 2008, 10:03 PM)
You are right, it is ridiculous. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, it is simply the literal interpretation. You are not paying for the magic points you have lost, you are paying for the Magic points you lose as a result of Essense loss per p62. The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.
Except that nothing within the rule states it comes to apply as soon as a person buys a magical quality. There's nothing written within it about delaying for a state to switch from false to true; only that it has immediate effects upon a state that is true. In a case where someone becomes a mage and then gets cyberwear, this presents no problems. For those cases where it does, we have the latent awakening to fall back on for dealing with it. What you have just done within that is add statements to the rule that are not actually written within it (I've bolded them for you). What you're doing is adding interpretations to the rules instead of taking them literally.
QUOTE
Funnily enough, I'm not the one who's apparently ignoring the literal interpretation of the RAW and apparently practicing non-literal definitions of "literal".
Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 12:14 PM)
Except that nothing within the rule states it comes to apply as soon as a person buys a magical quality. There's nothing written within it about delaying for a state to switch from false to true; only that it has immediate effects upon a state that is true. In a case where someone becomes a mage and then gets cyberwear, this presents no problems. For those cases where it does, we have the latent awakening to fall back on for dealing with it. What you have just done within that is add statements to the rule that are not actually written within it (I've bolded them for you). What you're doing is adding interpretations to the rules instead of taking them literally.
Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.
QUOTE
And their magic score, naturally, is already reduced as well; they have to pay the 25 BP max sooner than they would otherwise. However, the question, which has been the thing we've been discussing this entire time and the point you have been ignoring, is whether or not they have to pay for the magic points they lost.
I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. As you have already said, the words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 23 2008, 10:27 PM)
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.
I'll come back to the bolded part in a bit.
And I'm arguing that, under a literal interpretation, there is nothing which states they will have to pay for the points that are lost, which was the source of confusion when this whole mess started.
QUOTE
I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
For the first part you underlined, this is my evidence:
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
For the second part you underlined, this is my evidence:
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
Now, you never posted the rule itself, so you haven't actually posted any evidence. Just your interpretations, which you openly admitted to being your interpretations (note the part I said I'd come back to). Considering the claim in your sig and the fact our discussion has ended at the exact same place it started, only with it being hours later, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory
If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the 107010X3C Skyscraper Form, in triplicate, and submit it by midnight, Central time. In case you're wondering, each form is named after what it is equal to in height, pray you never have to fill out the Astronomical Unit Form.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 01:00 PM)
And I'm arguing that, under a literal interpretation, there is nothing which states they will have to pay for the points that are lost, which was the source of confusion when this whole mess started.
Now, you never posted the rule itself, so you haven't actually posted any evidence. Just your interpretations, which you openly admitted to being your interpretations (note the part I said I'd come back to). Considering the claim in your sig and the fact our discussion has ended at the exact same place it started, only with it being hours later, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory
If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the 107010X3C Skyscraper Form, in triplicate, and submit it by midnight, Central time. In case you're wondering, each form is named after what it is equal to in height, pray you never have to fill out the Astronomical Unit Form.
Now, you never posted the rule itself, so you haven't actually posted any evidence. Just your interpretations, which you openly admitted to being your interpretations (note the part I said I'd come back to). Considering the claim in your sig and the fact our discussion has ended at the exact same place it started, only with it being hours later, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory
If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the 107010X3C Skyscraper Form, in triplicate, and submit it by midnight, Central time. In case you're wondering, each form is named after what it is equal to in height, pray you never have to fill out the Astronomical Unit Form.
And I am arguing that under a literal interpretation, they lose the points simply because their Essense is below 6.
QUOTE (SR4 p62)
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
Your quotes do not answer those parts I underlined. In no case, does the quotes actually say that the Magic is already reduced or lost to implantation prior to Awakening, only that the character loses the Magic point.
I have posted the rule (per each reference to SR4 p62) although I have only quoted it once in verbatim. Considering synner's intention clarification and the fact our discussion has ended with your interpretation being neither canon nor RAW, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory.
If you wish to protest this victory, please make it a point to fill out the RootNegPi-Irrationality form, in quadriplicate, and submit it by noon yesterday. If you can find it and submit it out of time.
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 23 2008, 11:28 PM)
And I am arguing that under a literal interpretation, they lose the points simply because their Essense is below 6.
Literal interpretations do not add meanings that are not there.
QUOTE
Your quotes do not answer those parts I underlined. In no case, does the quotes actually say that the Magic is already reduced or lost to implantation prior to Awakening, only that the character loses the Magic point.
You know, you've been kinda contradicting yourself on this one. Let me quote the contradictory statement.
QUOTE
There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.
So, which is it? Have they already lost the magic points and need to pay for them, or do they end up losing the points (thus having it come to apply when it hadn't) upon Awakening?
QUOTE
I have posted the rule (per each reference to SR4 p62) although I have only quoted it once in verbatim. Considering the claim in my sig and the fact our discussion has ended with you being abjectly wrong, I'm going to go ahead and claim victory.
Here's links to every post you've made on this thread:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759222
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759226
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759237
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759251
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759262
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759275
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759302
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759321
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759347
You have posted the rule itself exactly 0 times. You have posted references to the rule, through page number or text reference or both, in exactly 6 posts. Your bolded claim of having stated it verbatim is disproven by your own posts. Feel free to reference the posts themselves and try to point out where you have posted the exact text of the rule and not some page reference, rewording, or interpretation of it.
You have also, by this point, failed to prove that your interpretation, which includes quite a bit that is not even part of the rule, is a literal interpretation and not a personal interpretation. In fact, you have already admitted it's a personal interpretation. Here's the proof:
QUOTE
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not.
Those are your own words, without a single bit of rewording. You admit to adding to the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is a your own interpretation. If you were posting a literal interpretation, you wouldn't be adding anything to it, but merely what is already there and easily found. My own are easily found within the wording, as is, and under the literal interpretation of it without the necessity of adding in any issues of time, it coming to effect when it does not, or anything like that.
I had tried to end this with humor. Now, I'm not. Unless you have any actual evidence to support your claims, this conversation is effectively over. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 02:04 PM)
Literal interpretations do not add meanings that are not there.
You know, you've been kinda contradicting yourself on this one. Let me quote the contradictory statement.
So, which is it? Have they already lost the magic points and need to pay for them, or do they end up losing the points (thus having it come to apply when it hadn't) upon Awakening?
Here's links to every post you've made on this thread:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759222
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759226
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759237
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759251
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759262
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759275
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759302
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759321
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759347
You have posted the rule itself exactly 0 times. You have posted references to the rule, through page number or text reference or both, in exactly 6 posts. Your bolded claim of having stated it verbatim is disproven by your own posts. Feel free to reference the posts themselves and try to point out where you have posted the exact text of the rule and not some page reference, rewording, or interpretation of it.
You have also, by this point, failed to prove that your interpretation, which includes quite a bit that is not even part of the rule, is a literal interpretation and not a personal interpretation. In fact, you have already admitted it's a personal interpretation. Here's the proof:
Those are your own words, without a single bit of rewording. You admit to adding to the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is a your own interpretation. If you were posting a literal interpretation, you wouldn't be adding anything to it, but merely what is already there and easily found. My own are easily found within the wording, as is, and under the literal interpretation of it without the necessity of adding in any issues of time, it coming to effect when it does not, or anything like that.
I had tried to end this with humor. Now, I'm not. Unless you have any actual evidence to support your claims, this conversation is effectively over. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.
You know, you've been kinda contradicting yourself on this one. Let me quote the contradictory statement.
So, which is it? Have they already lost the magic points and need to pay for them, or do they end up losing the points (thus having it come to apply when it hadn't) upon Awakening?
Here's links to every post you've made on this thread:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759222
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759226
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759237
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759251
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759262
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759275
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759302
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759321
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759347
You have posted the rule itself exactly 0 times. You have posted references to the rule, through page number or text reference or both, in exactly 6 posts. Your bolded claim of having stated it verbatim is disproven by your own posts. Feel free to reference the posts themselves and try to point out where you have posted the exact text of the rule and not some page reference, rewording, or interpretation of it.
You have also, by this point, failed to prove that your interpretation, which includes quite a bit that is not even part of the rule, is a literal interpretation and not a personal interpretation. In fact, you have already admitted it's a personal interpretation. Here's the proof:
Those are your own words, without a single bit of rewording. You admit to adding to the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is a your own interpretation. If you were posting a literal interpretation, you wouldn't be adding anything to it, but merely what is already there and easily found. My own are easily found within the wording, as is, and under the literal interpretation of it without the necessity of adding in any issues of time, it coming to effect when it does not, or anything like that.
I had tried to end this with humor. Now, I'm not. Unless you have any actual evidence to support your claims, this conversation is effectively over. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.
And I have not added any additional meanings.
I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that if your Essense is less than 6, you lose a certain amount of Magic per SR4 p62. Each time I post "SR4 p62" I am posting that rule. I am not been quoting it verbatim everytime, that's all. And even by your standard equating quoting of the text to posting the rule, I have posted it exactly once.
Your proof simply means that I am right. I admit to pointing out the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is but a literal interpretation thereof. You are adding to the rule with your issue of "whether or not the Magic rating would have to be bought up to a pre-ware level and then reduced or automatically assumed reduced and then bought up to a post-ware level." This issue should not even come in per SR4 p62.
Now that you have failed to have the last word in the argument using humor, you will use bluster and indignation. My aguments are backed by the evidence that I have shown, you are simply disregarding them because they do not support your claims. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 24 2008, 12:35 AM)
And I have not added any additional meanings.
Here's what you openly admitted to adding:
QUOTE
It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62.
QUOTE
does not matter that you bought the Magic later
And where you admit adding them after I challenged that they are not part of the rule itself:
QUOTE
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not.
QUOTE
I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that if your Essense is less than 6, you lose a certain amount of Magic per SR4 p62. Each time I post "SR4 p62" I am posting that rule. I am not been quoting it verbatim everytime, that's all. And even by your standard equating quoting of the text to posting the rule, I have posted it exactly once.
The bolded part has already been dealt with. Provide evidence to the contrary.
And these are the places where it has been quoted verbatim, for comparison purposes:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=758977
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759084
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759289
As for the rest: You have posted a reference to the rule, not the rule itself. I asked you for evidence that you have posted the rule, verbatim, and you give me none. Meanwhile, I've already presented my evidence that you haven't. And, as for quoting
QUOTE
Your proof simply means that I am right. I admit to pointing out the rule items that are not actually part of it and that it is but a literal interpretation thereof. You are adding to the rule with your issue of "whether or not the Magic rating would have to be bought up to a pre-ware level and then reduced or automatically assumed reduced and then bought up to a post-ware level." This issue should not even come in per SR4 p62.
Actually, that part was not added to the rule itself; that part was discussing interesting consequences of the rule in question related to chargen. In fact, here's my proof of it:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759138
QUOTE
Nothing within the rules you posted addressed whether or not the Magic rating would have to be bought up to a pre-ware level and then reduced or automatically assumed reduced and then bought up to a post-ware level. What they did talk about was reducing a magic or resonance rating you already have. Which, considering the question brought up the possibility of adding the magic rating to someone after the ware is bought and there is already rules in place for dealing with that possibility post-chargen, the question became whether or not that changeup in order and the resulting changes in BP spent also could apply to chargen.
Nothing you posted addressed that. Nothing in the entire rulebook addresses that. It took Magus having to outright ask the devs themselves to get an answer to that.
Nothing you posted addressed that. Nothing in the entire rulebook addresses that. It took Magus having to outright ask the devs themselves to get an answer to that.
Note that the question is not what the rule itself actually says, but the interactions of the particular rule with other rules within the book and a lack of clarification in them. And, also, note that I admit, in that very same post, what settled the issue.
QUOTE
Now that you have failed to have the last word in the argument using humor, you will try anger and indignation. My aguments are backed by the evidence that I have shown, you are simply disregarding them because they do not support your claims. If you wish to have a chance of recovering your argument from this, try posting actual evidence.
Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, a partial quoting of the rule itself, several references to said rule, and a quote taken out of context and with its meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, posts by others, two verbatim quotes of the rule in question in my own posts...
I'm still waiting on evidence from you. Nice try, though.
What I count as quoting the rule verbatim:
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
What I count as posting the rule:
SR4 p62
However if you insist on the full verbatim quotation of the rule(instead of posting SR4 p62 or any part quotation thereof), then I am afraid that I must insist on having the whole rule quoted to count as a posting then. Like so:
My "admission" of additional words are not an admission to an addition to the rule itself but is instead an admission to addressing the timing issues that you have brought up. Your quotes provide the very evidence to the contrary. You have consistently insisted that the rule has timing, I have repeatedly stated that timing is not mentioned within the rule and hence is not an issue and it does not matter.
Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, and 1 full verbatim quote of the rule in question in this post.
I'm still waiting on evidence from you. Nice try, though.
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
What I count as posting the rule:
SR4 p62
However if you insist on the full verbatim quotation of the rule(instead of posting SR4 p62 or any part quotation thereof), then I am afraid that I must insist on having the whole rule quoted to count as a posting then. Like so:
QUOTE (SR4 p62)
Essense Rating: All characters have a starting Essense attribute of 6. Cyberware and bioware implants reduce this rating. No character mat start with an Essense of greater than 6. Under basic Shadowrun rules, characters can never have an Essense of 0 or less. If they do, they die.
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).
The maximum natural rating for Edge is 6(7 for humans).
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).
The maximum natural rating for Edge is 6(7 for humans).
QUOTE ( My quotes)
For myself, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, it is clear to me that Magic is always reduced, whether you choose to buy it before or after you implant during chargen.
No, in the RAW literal interpretation of the passage, the person loses magic (it does not matter if they have the Magic then or later) if they have Essense lower than 6.
The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.
No, in the RAW literal interpretation of the passage, the person loses magic (it does not matter if they have the Magic then or later) if they have Essense lower than 6.
The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.
QUOTE ( Your quotes)
The problem is, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, a person only loses magic points they have as they lose cyber. Thus, they can come back after they've already lost the magic, pay to get magic, and not have to subtract any points. Of course, their new magic rating is still limited by their lowered maximum magic rating.
You go ahead and add cyber to the character, with full intents of going ahead and adding in a bit of magic later on. Then you reference the rule in question. What does it say? That as you reduce essense, you also lose points of magic. You, at current, have no points of magic to lose; you can't subtract from something that doesn't exist. Now, what it doesn't state (read it over if you don't believe me) is whether or not this loss applies to any gaining of magic once you've already lost essense.
A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself.
Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.
You go ahead and add cyber to the character, with full intents of going ahead and adding in a bit of magic later on. Then you reference the rule in question. What does it say? That as you reduce essense, you also lose points of magic. You, at current, have no points of magic to lose; you can't subtract from something that doesn't exist. Now, what it doesn't state (read it over if you don't believe me) is whether or not this loss applies to any gaining of magic once you've already lost essense.
A literal reading of the rule has it that each loss is a one-time loss, connected directly with the loss of Essense itself.
Each part or full point below 6 is a case of it being below 6. Thus, in this case, it is literally saying, "If your essense is reduced below 6, you lose magic, with magic lost being equal to 1 magic point per full or partial essense point below 6." It's a trigger set up to have multiple variables it keeps track of, yet have a permanent result. And it's a one-time only result, given the fact you cannot (IIRC) regain essense and have it raise magic at the same time. If it were passive, then a person who managed to regain essense would also automatically raise their magic score as well. Except, under RAW, the way to raise magic is through paying BP in chargen or Karma.
My "admission" of additional words are not an admission to an addition to the rule itself but is instead an admission to addressing the timing issues that you have brought up. Your quotes provide the very evidence to the contrary. You have consistently insisted that the rule has timing, I have repeatedly stated that timing is not mentioned within the rule and hence is not an issue and it does not matter.
Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, and 1 full verbatim quote of the rule in question in this post.
I'm still waiting on evidence from you. Nice try, though.
I prefer to think of issues like this threefold...
1: If I was GMing would I allow if?
2: Who does it hurt? Who does it benefit?
3: I am prepared to push my interpretation and have it turned against me every time we run into a NPC mage?
By the rules, I think you have to pay the BP first.
As a GM if someone tried this at my table it would last as long it took me to explain that they could do it that way, but as soon as they purchased the Quality (Mage, Techno, Adept, Mystic Apept) they would have their magic reduced to 0 and burnout, but that is just my personal anti-munchkin rulings.
1: If I was GMing would I allow if?
2: Who does it hurt? Who does it benefit?
3: I am prepared to push my interpretation and have it turned against me every time we run into a NPC mage?
By the rules, I think you have to pay the BP first.
As a GM if someone tried this at my table it would last as long it took me to explain that they could do it that way, but as soon as they purchased the Quality (Mage, Techno, Adept, Mystic Apept) they would have their magic reduced to 0 and burnout, but that is just my personal anti-munchkin rulings.
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 24 2008, 02:44 AM)
What I count as quoting the rule verbatim:
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
What I count as posting the rule:
SR4 p62
However if you insist on the full verbatim quotation of the rule(instead of posting SR4 p62 or any part quotation thereof), then I am afraid that I must insist on having the whole rule quoted to count as a posting then. Like so:
For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
What I count as posting the rule:
SR4 p62
However if you insist on the full verbatim quotation of the rule(instead of posting SR4 p62 or any part quotation thereof), then I am afraid that I must insist on having the whole rule quoted to count as a posting then. Like so:
I think most people would agree that section covers three rules. Still, touche. I'll cede the ground on most of this one rather than fight a battle I know I'd lose.
I will also note that you are the one who claimed to have posted the entire rule verbatim. What you have done with this is prove my challenge earlier that you had not, though you used your own countering of my posting it to do so. In disproving one claim I made, you turned around and provided evidence for a challenge I had made against you, thus disproving the claim you had made earlier about having posted it verbatim. And added another piece of evidence onto my pile for proving my counter to that claim. Thank you for that.
QUOTE
My "admission" of additional words are not an admission to an addition to the rule itself but is instead an admission to addressing the timing issues that you have brought up. Your quotes provide the very evidence to the contrary. You have consistently insisted that the rule has timing, I have repeatedly stated that timing is not mentioned within the rule and hence is not an issue and it does not matter.
Interestingly, the timing issues I brought up are taken directly from the rule itself and then reworded, with the issue being that it's worded in such a way that the loss itself happens with each point or partial point of essense lost. Here's my evidence for it:
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
The rest of it is combining the other rules together to form a cohesive statement of the complete rules interaction. I can stop and point out exactly which rules I was using, as well as the page numbers and posting exact quotes, if you want me to go there.
As for the admission: You posted the context of it, and the context did not change the meaning. You admitted to the addition, you admitted it's your own interpretation, and it's in your own words. In fact, here's the full context of it:
QUOTE (torturi)
You are right, it is ridiculous. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, it is simply the literal interpretation. You are not paying for the magic points you have lost, you are paying for the Magic points you lose as a result of Essense loss per p62. The Magic score is reduced because your Essense is less than 6. That rule is always in force. The reduction is always accounted for because that rule always applies. It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later. You do not lose the Magic now, you lose it always. The reduction is always accounted for.
QUOTE (Morrigana)
Except that nothing within the rule states it comes to apply as soon as a person buys a magical quality. There's nothing written within it about delaying for a state to switch from false to true; only that it has immediate effects upon a state that is true. In a case where someone becomes a mage and then gets cyberwear, this presents no problems. For those cases where it does, we have the latent awakening to fall back on for dealing with it. What you have just done within that is add statements to the rule that are not actually written within it (I've bolded them for you). What you're doing is adding interpretations to the rules instead of taking them literally.
Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
Strangely enough, I have my evidence that the words you've added to your interpretation of it are not within the rule itself, and I provide it every time I post the rule itself. The words are simply not there. Where's your evidence that they are?
QUOTE (torturi)
Exactly! I added those words simply to convey that the issue that you are bringing up is simply not there. My interpretation stands whether those words are there or not. Those bolded words simply emphasises the fact there are no additional words there. There is nothing within the rules that state that it does not apply when a person buys a magical quality. It simply is there, whether you buy the quality or not. It applies all the time.
Your own words, in context, have you admitting to adding to the rule items that were not there already while accusing me of the same. You cannot say you didn't admit it because it's right there in your own words.
QUOTE
Here's the thing: You've posted no evidence at all except your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I've got your posts, my posts, and 1 full verbatim quote of the rule in question in this post.
Prove the bolded part. I can prove I did post evidence with links to my own posts. In fact, here's posts where I did post evidence:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759331
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759352
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=759359
I've also shown that the one quote I could have possibly changed the meaning of by taking out of context did not change meaning at all. And I have you outright proving my earlier refuting that you had not, at that time, posted a verbatim copy of the rule in question.
Thank you for adding to my pile of evidence
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 05:35 PM)
I will also note that you are the one who claimed to have posted the entire rule verbatim. What you have done with this is prove my challenge earlier that you had not, though you used your own countering of my posting it to do so. In disproving one claim I made, you turned around and provided evidence for a challenge I had made against you, thus disproving the claim you had made earlier about having posted it verbatim. And added another piece of evidence onto my pile for proving my counter to that claim. Thank you for that.
Interestingly, the timing issues I brought up are taken directly from the rule itself and then reworded, with the issue being that it's worded in such a way that the loss itself happens with each point or partial point of essense lost.
As for the admission: You posted the context of it, and the context did not change the meaning. You admitted to the addition, you admitted it's your own interpretation, and it's in your own words.
I've also shown that the one quote I could have possibly changed the meaning of by taking out of context did not change meaning at all. And I have you outright proving my earlier refuting that you had not, at that time, posted a verbatim copy of the rule in question.
Interestingly, the timing issues I brought up are taken directly from the rule itself and then reworded, with the issue being that it's worded in such a way that the loss itself happens with each point or partial point of essense lost.
As for the admission: You posted the context of it, and the context did not change the meaning. You admitted to the addition, you admitted it's your own interpretation, and it's in your own words.
I've also shown that the one quote I could have possibly changed the meaning of by taking out of context did not change meaning at all. And I have you outright proving my earlier refuting that you had not, at that time, posted a verbatim copy of the rule in question.
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
And time is never mentioned within the context of this quote. It simply states the consequences of Essense below 6. There is no timing issues within the rule itself, you added them in when you reworded it.QUOTE
It doesn't matter if you have no Magic at implantation, it is accounted for then, it will be accounted for when you buy the Awakened Qualities precisely because of the rule in p62. It only looks at your Essense. You always lose 1 point of Magic for each point of Essense or part thereof lost, it does not matter that you bought the Magic later.
As I have stated, that is an admission that timing does not matter. There is, therefore, no addition at all since it is the literal interpretation of the rule. The rule never does mentions when Essense is lost. Just that that Essense is lost; if Essense less than 6, Magic is reduced by said amount. Not when Essense is lost, Magic is reduced by said amount.
Seeing that you have ceded the grounds, then it remains that you have not posted the rule to my strict standards. Indeed, in your links, all you have done is post your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. There is no evidence in those posts that I will consider evidence at all, hence the bolded parts are proven.
I claimed to have posted the rule and what I defined as posting of the rule. But I concede the point that I have not posted the rule to your standards previously. I have, however, proven that I have posted the rule, to my own earlier standards as well as later standards in view of your own.
Thank you for adding to my pile of evidence.
I just read a page and a have of posts regarding one poster "adding to his pile of evidence" on whether another poster quoted RAW verbatim.
Wow, it must be the holidays:)
Wow, it must be the holidays:)
Yeesh...
I know it's not the pure mechanics, but from a character point of view:
(With the exception of latent awakening) you either are, or are not, a mage at birth, possibly even earlier...
Now...when did you get that cyber implanted?
I know it's not the pure mechanics, but from a character point of view:
(With the exception of latent awakening) you either are, or are not, a mage at birth, possibly even earlier...
Now...when did you get that cyber implanted?
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 24 2008, 04:44 AM)
And time is never mentioned within the context of this quote. It simply states the consequences of Essense below 6. There is no timing issues within the rule itself, you added them in when you reworded it.
Except the way it's worded, the loss is instaneous and permanent; that isn't a timing issue, but simply a case that the loss simply is. The idea it's also a one-time loss is also from how it's worded. Here, let me show you (using the expanded rule you posted):
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
Nothing there says it will be accounted for when they gain the magical quality; only that it is as essense is lowered. The issue itself comes from the words. Both "loses" and "is" are in the present tense; that, by the very nature of it, indicates something happening at current, not something that will happen. It also isn't indicating that these are items that happen all of the time, but merely something that happens now. Not the lack of terms that indicate it happens all of the time, such as words like "always." That's not something I'm adding to the rule itself, but something that was already there to begin with.
QUOTE
As I have stated, that is an admission that timing does not matter. There is, therefore, no addition at all since it is the literal interpretation of the rule. The rule never does mentions when Essense is lost. Just that that Essense is lost; if Essense less than 6, Magic is reduced by said amount. Not when Essense is lost, Magic is reduced by said amount.
Except that is adding a future timing event that the rule itself does not have. Nothing within it indicates this is an event that happens in the future, when you finally gain magical abilities. It indicates this happens now, at the time you lose the essense, and nothing about the wording makes this an event that is temporary or dependent upon whether or not an event comes true. In fact, there's only two dependency clauses. Here they are:
QUOTE
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes
QUOTE
For each point or partial point of Essense below 6,
Neither of those is indicative or whether or not a character gains a Magic or Resonance attribute; they only deal with those who already have one. Your comment about it applying when they gain one is adding the idea that the rule should be worded like this in the first dependency clause related to magic:
QUOTE
Characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance attributes
And while I agree that it should have been worded that way, I also must point out that it's not actually worded that way. Nothing within the wording deals with whether or not a person gains the attribute after the essense loss or that it will apply when they do.
As for the points being lost immediately? There's evidence for that as well. Let's look:
QUOTE
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.
Loses. Are subject. Not will lose. Not will be subject. Not always loses. Not always are subject. Not might lose. Not might be subject.
Where does it indicate, and I mean actually indicate instead of being interpreted to indicate, that any part of this will come about when someone gains their magical abilities? It doesn't. It indicates a loss that happened immediately when the essense loss happened.
The only question that remains, and this is a question that the rule does not answer, is if someone has to pay for the lost points. That question is answered by Magus's post.
QUOTE
Seeing that you have ceded the grounds, then it remains that you have not posted the rule to my strict standards. Indeed, in your links, all you have done is post your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. There is no evidence in those posts that I will consider evidence at all, hence the bolded parts are proven.
In other words, you're tossing out evidence you don't like simply because it doesn't fit your conclusions. Didn't you accuse me of doing that earlier?
And, honestly, I think I've more than proven the strict standards to which I have limited myself in dealing with a literal interpretation of the rule. You have not; you've been adding actions, clauses, and dependencies to it which simply don't exist in the wording and couldn't be supported by the wording itself. And I've already proven that, in that evidence you don't like simply because it makes your argument look bad.
QUOTE
I claimed to have posted the rule and what I defined as posting of the rule. But I concede the point that I have not posted the rule to your standards previously. I have, however, proven that I have posted the rule, to my own earlier standards as well as later standards in view of your own.
At the time of the accusation itself, you had not actually posted it. Whether or not you posted it later and your attempts at wordplay to make it seem like you have ground to stand on do not matter; you claimed to have posted it verbatim and have been proven to have not. Whether or not you wish to redefine the meaning of "verbatim" to suit your own needs also does not matter. What matters is whether or not you did, and we both have proven you did not.
I'm going to offer you a chance to agree to disagree and we both walk away. I don't have to; at this point, I've just begun to prepare my argument. But, others are getting tired of it, I don't think you want to continue to argue this, and I know it would be nice to get back to entirely the lighter hearted posting I prefer to do. If you agree to it, even if you post a reply to what I've argued here, we'll both just walk away and let it drop. If not, then we continue.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 24 2008, 11:45 PM)
Neither of those is indicative or whether or not a character gains a Magic or Resonance attribute; they only deal with those who already have one. Your comment about it applying when they gain one is adding the idea that the rule should be worded like this in the first dependency clause related to magic:
No they do not.
Only think those sentences say is that if you have magic or reconance and your essence is less then 6, the rules that follow apply(ie. you lose magic/resonance)
QUOTE (Mäx @ Dec 24 2008, 04:44 PM)
No they do not.
Only think those sentences say is that if you have magic or reconance and your essence is less then 6, the rules that follow apply(ie. you lose magic/resonance)
Only think those sentences say is that if you have magic or reconance and your essence is less then 6, the rules that follow apply(ie. you lose magic/resonance)
Do you realize you just restated exactly what I had said in your reply to it? In effect, you told me it didn't say that, then turned around and restated my own comment, in a different form.
Edit: And, because I'm feeling evil at the moment:
QUOTE
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).
Does it state people who already have the attributes with what I bolded? Yep. Nowhere in there does it state anything about them gaining it; "with" in this case is the same thing, in usage, as "who have" for all intents and purposes of actual meaning. There's no indication of a future event, only an indication of effects upon the present.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 25 2008, 12:48 AM)
Do you realize you just restated exactly what I had said in your reply to it? In effect, you told me it didn't say that, then turned around and restated my own comment, in a different form.
No i didn't.
I said that it doesn't matter if you have a magic or resonance when you lose essence, only that when you do finally have magic/resonace and your essence is less the 6, all the rules that follw those two tatements are in effeckt and the character loses a point of magic/resonance for every partial point of essence below 6.
And becouse you ninja edited:Yes you are absolutly right about it tating that it only affeck people who allready have magic/resonance it has no effeck on mundanes.
so when character gets magic/resonace you check his essence and if it's less then 6, they lose magic/resonance points.
I cannot understand where does your confusion gome from.
QUOTE (Mäx @ Dec 24 2008, 04:55 PM)
No i didn't.
I said that it doesn't matter if you have a magic or resonance when you lose essence, only that when you do finally have magic/resonace and your essence is less the 6, all the rules that follw those two tatements are in effeckt and the character loses a point of magic/resonance for every partial point of essence below 6.
I said that it doesn't matter if you have a magic or resonance when you lose essence, only that when you do finally have magic/resonace and your essence is less the 6, all the rules that follw those two tatements are in effeckt and the character loses a point of magic/resonance for every partial point of essence below 6.
You do know that this argument is about the literal interpretation of the RAW about essense and what it literally means and not about how it actually works and how it was intended to function, right?
Under a literal interpretation of it, there's no indication of future events, such as someone finally having a magic attribute, being effected; it's purely an effect now. It's purely what happens now. Someone who comes along later and gains a magical attribute may have to pay for the points they lost now, but the entire rule itself is written to affect the present. And as long as it remains indicative of current actions and not future ones, and interpretation of changes wrought upon the person when they gain a magic attribute are adding interpretations to the rule that are not supported by the actual wording.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 25 2008, 12:59 AM)
You do know that this argument is about the literal interpretation of the RAW about essense and what it literally means and not about how it actually works and how it was intended to function, right?
yes
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 25 2008, 12:59 AM)
Under a literal interpretation of it, there's no indication of future events, such as someone finally having a magic attribute, being effected; it's purely an effect now. It's purely what happens now. Someone who comes along later and gains a magical attribute may have to pay for the points they lost now, but the entire rule itself is written to affect the present. And as long as it remains indicative of current actions and not future ones, and interpretation of changes wrought upon the person when they gain a magic attribute are adding interpretations to the rule that are not supported by the actual wording.
And if you get your character a piece of ware and then make her a mage, then the present situation is that you have magic and your essence is les then 6. Then both conditions for magic loss are fullfilled and you lose magic.
QUOTE (Mäx @ Dec 24 2008, 05:04 PM)
yes
Just making sure. The argument itself is kinda fuzzy. And, from a less literal standpoint, you're exactly right; if anything, I'd argue that a pure literal interpretation of the rules itself is automatically in the wrong due to how the very rules are written. However, it's a more literal interpretation of the rules that caused the problem that started this topic, so that's what I'm working with.
QUOTE
And if you get your character a piece of ware and then make her a mage, then the present situation is that you have magic and your essence is les then 6. Then both conditions for magic loss are fullfilled and you lose magic.
Mmm. No argument from me. The question then becomes, do you have to pay for the lost magic points? The rule itself doesn't cover this; neither does anything else the book. However, thanks to Magus's post, we know the answer, so it cannot be argued that you can get away with not paying the points without going with a pure literal interpretation RAW stance.
QUOTE (Morrigana @ Dec 25 2008, 01:10 AM)
Mmm. No argument from me. The question then becomes, do you have to pay for the lost magic points? The rule itself doesn't cover this; neither does anything else the book. However, thanks to Magus's post, we know the answer, so it cannot be argued that you can get away with not paying the points without going with a pure literal interpretation RAW stance.
If you don't buy extra points of magic, your magic atribute is 0 or less and your a burnout.
So you have buy more points if you want to be able to use magic in game.
QUOTE
Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).
Does the rule not apply when one has a Magic rating? Does it not apply when one has Essense less than 6? Do you not have a Magic rating and is your Essense not less than 6? Is there any time when this rule does not apply, if your Essense is less than 6 and have either Magic or Resonance? The literal interpretation of the rule is that for each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The line preceding this rule tells us who this rule applies to. This rule applies to those with Magic or Resonance attributes.
QUOTE
Neither of those is indicative or whether or not a character gains a Magic or Resonance attribute; they only deal with those who already have one.
Again there is no "already". The 2 clauses you indicate only deal with those who have one. Not those who "already have one" but simply those "with Magic or Resonance". You added in the "already". I did not.
QUOTE
Your comment about it applying when they gain one is adding the idea that the rule should be worded like this in the first dependency clause related to magic:
Characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance attributes
You are incorrectly interpreting my words and putting words where none has existed. At no time, have I used "characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance", if I did, please quote these exact words, apart from this instance.Characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance attributes
QUOTE
In other words, you're tossing out evidence you don't like simply because it doesn't fit your conclusions. Didn't you accuse me of doing that earlier?
I am tossing out nothing. There is nothing but your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I think I've more than proven the strict standards to which I have limited myself in dealing with a literal interpretation of the rule. You have not; you've been attributing timing and dependencies to it which simply don't exist in the wording and couldn't be supported by the wording itself. And I've already proven that, in that evidence you don't like simply because it makes your argument look bad.QUOTE
At the time of the accusation itself, you had not actually posted it. Whether or not you posted it later and your attempts at wordplay to make it seem like you have ground to stand on do not matter; you claimed to have posted it verbatim and have been proven to have not. Whether or not you wish to redefine the meaning of "verbatim" to suit your own needs also does not matter. What matters is whether or not you did, and we both have proven you did not.
At the time of the accusation itself, I have posted it. What matters is I have proven that I did, while you are insisting that I did not.QUOTE
And if you get your character a piece of ware and then make her a mage, then the present situation is that you have magic and your essence is les then 6. Then both conditions for magic loss are fullfilled and you lose magic.
Thanks, Max, essentially what I have been trying to say.QUOTE
No argument from me.
Since you have no argument with Max's post, you'd get no argument from me. Since essentially, you are agreeing with what I am saying. I thank you for ceding the argument and will bow out gracefully.
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 24 2008, 07:38 PM)
Thanks, Max, essentially what I have been trying to say.
You know, this could have ended pages ago if it had been stated that simply
QUOTE
Since you have no argument with Max's post, you'd get no argument from me. Since essentially, you are agreeing with what I am saying. I thank you for ceding the argument and will bow out gracefully.
Aye, I cede. I admit my utter defeat and must bow to the master.
Now, I have a signature addition to make...
Shrug. I don't.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.