QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Apr 15 2010, 04:08 PM) 
You can by virtue of rerolling them. Hence the use of the word "reroll."
I disagree. looks like we've taken it as far as it'll go.
Full Version: Spending two points of edge?
I disagree. looks like we've taken it as far as it'll go.
It sounds like you'll simply have to house-rule this in your own games. If you think that glitches have independent existence, rule so. If you think you can reroll the whole roll, or just the non-hits, rule so. Consistency for your players is really the only requirement.
QUOTE (Creel @ Apr 15 2010, 01:14 PM)
I've read the thread, I haven't seen my point adequately addressed. There was a lot about the wording of edge focused on the idea that the glitch is an effect of the test, and rerolling the test changes the glitch. I'm saying that the glitch is independent of the results of the test, and is a result of the initial roll.
I have already covered this.
In this thread.
Multiple times.
The act of rerolling the dice replaces the previous state with the new result. You reroll the dice that did not score a hit, and if the result of the reroll does not contain enough 1's to be a Glitch, the test does not Glitch - as there are no longer enough 1's to trigger the glitch.
Rerolling does not 'add new dice', it 'replaces the previous roll'. This is the definition of rerolling. Learn to read, comprehend, and shut the fuck up.
Creel, I will say that I think your argument does have a small amount of credence to it and is the only viable argument for not letting a dice reroll negate a glitch, but you'll have to provide a stronger argument that a "roll" and a "test" are separately tracked entities.
The extended test seems to indicate the possibility as there are multiple rolls per test, but that has it's own rules spelled out and I can't think of any other exceptions where you're making multiple rolls for a single test. If you can back this up a bit more I might change my opinion, but for now I have to disagree with your interpretation.
The extended test seems to indicate the possibility as there are multiple rolls per test, but that has it's own rules spelled out and I can't think of any other exceptions where you're making multiple rolls for a single test. If you can back this up a bit more I might change my opinion, but for now I have to disagree with your interpretation.
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Apr 15 2010, 01:41 PM)
Again: Because you could come up with a glitch again when rerolling. And as you only can spend one point of edge, your would be stuck with it.
But that being the case, you could not spend that Edge to Negate (You spent to re-roll), and it would then not be an option for the definition of a Glitch given in the book and referenced above...
Just Sayin'
Keep the Faith
QUOTE (Creel @ Apr 15 2010, 05:21 PM)
I disagree. looks like we've taken it as far as it'll go.
I agree with you on this point. Your game, your rules. IMO, either interpretation makes a certain amount of sense. Enough sense that I don't think the devs need weigh in. I'd love them to, but this really isn't important enough for them to bother. Besides, I'd be surprised if there was some big rules council that decided on how it should be. Probably only a couple of guys wrote it and agreed, and maybe they didn't even realize they disagreed with each other on how they thought should work.
QUOTE (tagz @ Apr 15 2010, 07:53 PM)
Creel, I will say that I think your argument does have a small amount of credence to it and is the only viable argument for not letting a dice reroll negate a glitch, but you'll have to provide a stronger argument that a "roll" and a "test" are separately tracked entities.
The extended test seems to indicate the possibility as there are multiple rolls per test, but that has it's own rules spelled out and I can't think of any other exceptions where you're making multiple rolls for a single test. If you can back this up a bit more I might change my opinion, but for now I have to disagree with your interpretation.
The extended test seems to indicate the possibility as there are multiple rolls per test, but that has it's own rules spelled out and I can't think of any other exceptions where you're making multiple rolls for a single test. If you can back this up a bit more I might change my opinion, but for now I have to disagree with your interpretation.
Opposed tests involve multiple rolls, as well, but I'll give you that the roll/test justification is a little weak. I dug it up to refute the dissection of the edge wording.
Honestly, I don't see how the wording for glitch alone doesn't put this to bed. Using the reroll to squeeze more out of edge than just negating the glitch feels like a sleazy way to avoid consequences. The glitch mechanic is obviously intended to represent serious bad luck, especially where critical glitches are concerned. ruling that a reroll not only negates the glitch, but makes it so that it never happened and you can now brilliantly succeed without consequence is a munchkin move of the first order.
Sometimes bad shit happens; get rid of that idea, and it's hardly shadowrun anymore.
QUOTE (Creel @ Apr 20 2010, 02:54 PM)
Sometimes bad shit happens; get rid of that idea, and it's hardly shadowrun anymore.
Then it becomes... that other game.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Apr 15 2010, 03:26 PM)
The act of rerolling the dice replaces the previous state with the new result. You reroll the dice that did not score a hit, and if the result of the reroll does not contain enough 1's to be a Glitch, the test does not Glitch - as there are no longer enough 1's to trigger the glitch.
Rerolling does not 'add new dice', it 'replaces the previous roll'. This is the definition of rerolling.
Rerolling does not 'add new dice', it 'replaces the previous roll'. This is the definition of rerolling.
I have to disagree that the act of rerolling replaces the previous state...sort of. SR4A, page 62: "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." Now, this bit *does* include rules text that suggests that it is an exception, but it still stands as a clear example (in the Rules As Written) that not all re-rolls are, by definition, examples of rerolling.
Now, all that this really does is to point out why game designers need to be careful when using terms that have out-of-game definitions in rules text; at the very least, they should differentiate the terms in some way. Imagine, for example, the following alternative rules:
a) "Whenever you are instructed to Reroll dice, pick up all of the dice in question and roll them again. The original result is treated as though it never happened.
b) "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." (Rule of Six)
c) "You may Reroll all of the dice on a single test that did not score a hit"
This sort of wording would allow the designers to differentiate between times when the previous state of the dice matters (like when re-rolling the 6s in the Rule of Six) and times when the previous state isn't intended to matter.
QUOTE (Creel @ Apr 20 2010, 04:54 PM)
Opposed tests involve multiple rolls, as well, but I'll give you that the roll/test justification is a little weak. I dug it up to refute the dissection of the edge wording.
Honestly, I don't see how the wording for glitch alone doesn't put this to bed. Using the reroll to squeeze more out of edge than just negating the glitch feels like a sleazy way to avoid consequences. The glitch mechanic is obviously intended to represent serious bad luck, especially where critical glitches are concerned. ruling that a reroll not only negates the glitch, but makes it so that it never happened and you can now brilliantly succeed without consequence is a munchkin move of the first order.
Sometimes bad shit happens; get rid of that idea, and it's hardly shadowrun anymore.
Honestly, I don't see how the wording for glitch alone doesn't put this to bed. Using the reroll to squeeze more out of edge than just negating the glitch feels like a sleazy way to avoid consequences. The glitch mechanic is obviously intended to represent serious bad luck, especially where critical glitches are concerned. ruling that a reroll not only negates the glitch, but makes it so that it never happened and you can now brilliantly succeed without consequence is a munchkin move of the first order.
Sometimes bad shit happens; get rid of that idea, and it's hardly shadowrun anymore.
I have to agree with you here. There are 5 options for spending edge: 1) negating the effects of a glitch or critical glitch - no reroll, the glitch or crit glitch still happens, there is just no effect. 2) decreasing a crit glitch to a regular glitch but still failing - again no reroll here just less on the consequence side as it is now just a glitch. 3) add dice to your pool with all dice having exploding 6's. 4) adding additional dice after the roll with those additional dice having exploding 6's. 5) rerolling all non-hit dice in a test - this one does not specify that you get rid of the glitch (and in fairness it does not specify that you do not get rid of the glitch), it does give you the chance to add to the number of hits.
I will be adopting in my game that if you glitch and choose to reroll with your edge, you do not get rid of the glitch because all you are doing is looking at the hits. In addition, it you do not glitch on your test and you choose to reroll, you cannot glitch on the reroll because again, all you are doing is looking at the hits. If you crit glitch and you spend edge to reroll, then you have a glitch.
One thing that I have noticed is that on pg.62 you have:
QUOTE (SR4A @ pg.62)
Note that characters may spend Edge to downgrade a critical glitch to a regular non-catastrophic glitch (p. 74; note that the character still fails).
But if you go to pg.74 it does not state this as an option for spending edge, hence my last "house rule."
QUOTE (rumanchu @ Apr 20 2010, 03:44 PM)
I have to disagree that the act of rerolling replaces the previous state...sort of. SR4A, page 62: "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." Now, this bit *does* include rules text that suggests that it is an exception, but it still stands as a clear example (in the Rules As Written) that not all re-rolls are, by definition, examples of rerolling.
Now, all that this really does is to point out why game designers need to be careful when using terms that have out-of-game definitions in rules text; at the very least, they should differentiate the terms in some way. Imagine, for example, the following alternative rules:
a) "Whenever you are instructed to Reroll dice, pick up all of the dice in question and roll them again. The original result is treated as though it never happened.
b) "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." (Rule of Six)
c) "You may Reroll all of the dice on a single test that did not score a hit"
This sort of wording would allow the designers to differentiate between times when the previous state of the dice matters (like when re-rolling the 6s in the Rule of Six) and times when the previous state isn't intended to matter.
Now, all that this really does is to point out why game designers need to be careful when using terms that have out-of-game definitions in rules text; at the very least, they should differentiate the terms in some way. Imagine, for example, the following alternative rules:
a) "Whenever you are instructed to Reroll dice, pick up all of the dice in question and roll them again. The original result is treated as though it never happened.
b) "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." (Rule of Six)
c) "You may Reroll all of the dice on a single test that did not score a hit"
This sort of wording would allow the designers to differentiate between times when the previous state of the dice matters (like when re-rolling the 6s in the Rule of Six) and times when the previous state isn't intended to matter.
Yea, the rerolling sixes is specifically called out as an exception to what reroll means. Regardless, it would have been better written as "sixes count as hits, and are rolled again". It is effectively the same wording, but indicative that the 'reroll' does not replace the previous state, but is used in addition to it. Thus, it would not be contradictory to what rerolling means.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention - it's going to be included in my House Errata, just to ensure the situation never comes up in my games.
QUOTE (rumanchu @ Apr 20 2010, 03:44 PM)
I have to disagree that the act of rerolling replaces the previous state...sort of. SR4A, page 62: "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." Now, this bit *does* include rules text that suggests that it is an exception, but it still stands as a clear example (in the Rules As Written) that not all re-rolls are, by definition, examples of rerolling.
Now, all that this really does is to point out why game designers need to be careful when using terms that have out-of-game definitions in rules text; at the very least, they should differentiate the terms in some way. Imagine, for example, the following alternative rules:
a) "Whenever you are instructed to Reroll dice, pick up all of the dice in question and roll them again. The original result is treated as though it never happened.
b) "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." (Rule of Six)
c) "You may Reroll all of the dice on a single test that did not score a hit"
This sort of wording would allow the designers to differentiate between times when the previous state of the dice matters (like when re-rolling the 6s in the Rule of Six) and times when the previous state isn't intended to matter.
Now, all that this really does is to point out why game designers need to be careful when using terms that have out-of-game definitions in rules text; at the very least, they should differentiate the terms in some way. Imagine, for example, the following alternative rules:
a) "Whenever you are instructed to Reroll dice, pick up all of the dice in question and roll them again. The original result is treated as though it never happened.
b) "When Edge is spent on a test, any dice that roll sixes are counted as hits and then re-rolled. Thus dice rolled with Edge can potentially generate more than 1 hit (since you keep re-rolling sixes)." (Rule of Six)
c) "You may Reroll all of the dice on a single test that did not score a hit"
This sort of wording would allow the designers to differentiate between times when the previous state of the dice matters (like when re-rolling the 6s in the Rule of Six) and times when the previous state isn't intended to matter.
Yea, the rerolling sixes is specifically called out as an exception to what reroll means. Regardless, it would have been better written as "sixes count as hits, and are rolled again". It is effectively the same wording, but indicative that the 'reroll' does not replace the previous state, but is used in addition to it. Thus, it would not be contradictory to what rerolling means.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention - it's going to be included in my House Errata, just to ensure the situation never comes up in my games.
QUOTE (wind_in_the_stones @ Apr 18 2010, 10:19 AM)
Enough sense that I don't think the devs need weigh in. I'd love them to, but this really isn't important enough for them to bother.
Why would they when they can say nothing about it and continue to let us all continue to think that we're "right".
Hey all. This may sound like a silly question, but in general, don't the rules tell you what you can do, instead of trying to catch all the various things that someone could think up ("No, you can't strap a rocket to your back and fly to the moon")? In the SR4 book I have, it says you can spend edge to downgrade a critical glitch to a normal glitch'; if there were any other options of dealing with the critical glitch, wouldn't they say so right there, giving options as to what you can do about this potentially fatal crisis for your runner?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.