Actually no. Even assuming the possibility that the paragraph is talking about only skill rolls (which it isn't - as soon as you jump in to the biodrone you have to be working off of the drone rules anyways, at least as far as Initiative, what Attribute is linked to the skill, ect.), the fact that it says "exactly like a regular drone" means that it now follows every single rule that normal drones use - which is the specific Vehicle rules. Which includes Vehicle Upgrades.

Which is broken.

Again, that is not at all what that sentence means. What's broken is your brain if you think it's correct to deliberately ignore context. If you're going to start saying that every sentence in the book has to stand alone without context, you're literally violating the basic rules of English. Don't cheat at English, Neraph. You've got plenty of broken rules in SR4 without inventing them. This is certainly not 'a place where RAW fails'.

'Functions as' is not 'is considered' is not 'is'.

Actually, you're wrong.

If you need to, go look at the definition of "function." It means that you "use the rules for X."

In what reality does "function exactly like X" mean that we're only talking about skills? That sentence would be constructed radically different to have the meaning you're talking about.

Also, as I stated before, the paragraph is not about simply using skills at all. As soon as a rigger jumps in to the drone, all sorts of rules change. They work off of Matrix Initiative. They work off of Skill + Sensor (and how do you figure the Sensor rating of a panther?). They use Response (+ Dodge). That paragraph is talking about rules interactions in general. Animals use a radically different set of attributes as jumped-in riggers do.

Hes technically right, no matter how you pretty it up the sentence is clear. They function exactly like drones. There is no leeway in that sentence, its not ambiguous, its not poorly worded, its not misspelled. Is it strange for a Bio drone to have vehicle armor? Yes, do the rules care? No. What that sentence needs is a amendment or a clarification to detail exactly what rules it follows, as it stands now it encompasses all aspects of the drone rules.

From "Vehicle Combat" section of the BBB


This means that you are now encumbered when you get inside of a car according to Neraph...

I'm not saying this rule is well-worked out, because it's not. It raises all manner of questions, like "would the Pilot also get -1 to skills?" or "What Response does a jumped-in animal have?". Most of these can be guessed, but it's a bit shoddy rules, that's certainly true.

But I think it's really doing injustice to English to interpret that last sentence as turning the animal into a lump of metal. It depends on how you interpret "Function Like":

A) Is the same kind of object type from a rules standpoint

B) Works the same from a user's perspective, such as a PC rigger. It's steered in a similar manner.
(For example, if I say that the old lady's car functions exactly like a shopping cart because that's all she uses it for, that doesn't mean the car is or becomes a shopping cart, just that it's handled that way.)

What the writer meant was likely option B; in that case the text makes sense. The animal didn't turn into a drone, but it's piloted like a drone. This is a case where the context of a sentence is required to determine it's meaning. That's not really bad English, use of context is perfectly allowed in natural languages. I doubt even Neraph thought it was supposed to mean A, so the writer's intention was expressed clearly enough.

That's all well and dandy.

However, the Shadowrun rules are clearly not written with that sort of stringency, and it uses "and" in ways that should be "or".

If you want to delibaretly misinterpret the rules, go ahead and read it like it is written by a CS or English professor.

Which is plainly false, and should be corrected via errata. "And" can never be equal to "or", neither in common English nor in logic.

Example:
I can speak Spanish and English.
I can speak Spanish or English.

Both statements are correct.
Both statements mean the same thing.

The first one does not mean that I speak Spanish and English /at the same time/.

Well, not strictly.
"I can speak Spanish and English" informs us of an ability, "I can speak Spanish or English" is asking someone what language to address them in.

In the original text, it's not very neat phrasing, but I do think the intention is clear to most/all readers. It's not really such a big issue. You could also turn it around;
-1 die to Logic and Willpower tests
-1 die to Logic+Willpower tests
Are these really the same in meaning? I don't think so.

Of course the clearest phrasings would have been either:
-1 die to Logic+Willpower tests
-1 die to tests using Logic and/or Willpower <- what they intended
Because logical OR best translates to natural "and/or".

Anyway, another broken one: Turn to Goo. It fails to transform implants paid for with Essence!

"A Red Samurai? Pappa needs a new Smartlink, get me a sieve! He'll be mortified when i'm done with him!"

Actually the "Goo" is pretty hard. Joe Average will be at least transformed into Average Material (Example: tree, furniture, plastiboard, ballistic glass). three net hits make him Heavy Material and so on. I doubt those materials go through a sieve easily.

It's still a form of gel like liquid right?

Just because both are "correct" under normal conversational English does not mean both are suitable for use in a technical document. When writing an instructional piece, your standards for clarity and unambiguous choice in wording simply need to be higher.

Does a rule tend to create 13 different interpretations when viewed by 10 different people?

Then it's likely not a problem with the people, it's probably just badly written.



-karma

Except that's not what the paragraph was talking about. That paragraph is talking about what rules, overall, you're supposed to use with the biodrone.

If it's just the implant, they use all the rules for standard animals/critters. If you jump in, you use all the rules for jumping in and rigging, but with a -1 dicepool. If it's run by a Pilot program, it follows all the rules for drones.

That means that biodrones are, as a technicality of RAW, capable of sporting vehicle modifications and immune to stun. The paragraph was not simply talking about skill use, although it did mention skill use.

For example: what exactly does the sentence "The subject animal may make full use of its own faculties and skills..."? That is a clear implication of the biodrone using all the skills and rules associated with living subjects, critters, animals, or whatever you want to call them.

It's not clear that the Goo's armor rating is the same as rigidity.

Again, Ragewind (and Neraph), that "exactly" only means what you're saying if you ignore context entirely and pretend the sentence stands alone. That is obviously not the case. Even if that weren't true, you can't possibly argue that "functions exactly like a regular drone" means "is literally a drone vehicle".

Neraph, that paragraph is not "talking about what rules, overall, you're supposed to use with the biodrone". It's talking about what rules to use for controlling the biodrone. There are explicitly three options: A) Critter in control, B) Rigger Jumped-In, C) Pilot in control.

Right . It isn't clear either how cohesive the goo is or how adhesive it is to the non-transformed cyberware. The 'ware and the goo may just be stopped by the sieve.

One thing is certain, though: essence-paid implants shouldn't be affected differently, as the Turn to Goo and Petrify spells specify. That's a fundamental principle of the magic system.

I totally agree that this shouldn't be the case.

Actually, the paragraph is talking exclusively about how a biodrone is controlled. It's sorted in Biodrone Control Ware -> Stirrup Interface -> the modes that a SI allows. That's a very clear context.

"Functions exactly like" in this context is not "has the physical properties of", but "is controlled like". Within the context of the paragraph, it's perfectly clear.



No it's not. "Faculties" is another term for mental abilities. That means the animal uses the skills and mental abilities associated with animals.

actually, in describing that scenario i don't think i would ever use the word 'exactly', because the car clearly does not function exactly like a shopping cart. for example, 'exactly like a shopping cart' would imply that you push (or pull, i suppose) it down the aisles in a store and put goods that you intend to purchase within it, then bring it up to the front of the store, then unload everything onto the cashier's counter, then load everything back into it, then push (or pull) it out into the parking lot and either load everything into some other vehicle (such as another car) or container (such as a backpack) or push it home (much like you might do with one of those fold-up carts that you can buy for just such a purpose). it would further imply that the car itself has no ability to propel itself, because shopping carts don't do that. if the car is simply used for driving to and from stores and transporting purchased goods along the way, then it is in fact not really much like a shopping cart at all, and it would very inaccurate to describe it as being or functioning 'exactly' like a shopping cart.

the word exactly has a very specific meaning, for example:

"1. in an exact manner; accurately or precisely
2. in every respect; just it is exactly what he wants
sentence substitute
1. just so! precisely!"

if something is not the same in every respect, then it really isn't *exactly* the same, though it might be similar. by stating that it works *exactly* like a drone, they are implying that it is just like a drone "in every respect". if they had said it uses the exact same rules as you would for piloting a normal drone, that would be a much better way of saying it, because in this case you are telling them you use the exact same rules for piloting, not that the entire object is itself exactly like a drone.

It's not the best wording possible. That is a far cry from *meaning* what they're claiming. 'In every respect' is still subject to the scope imposed by context, and 'functions as' still doesn't mean 'is'. When a biodrone is controlled by a Pilot, that Pilot has 'exactly' the same control over it as a Pilot does for a vehicle drone.

So I guess when RW says that bandersnatchii "breed like horny college students", that means college students use all rules for bandersnatchii?

Oh well, English speakers and analogies...some things just don't mix

Man, this topic.

If it tends to generate endless raging arguments...

It's probably a broken rule, of the "needs clarification" variety.





-k

You aren't encumbered. The car is encumbered. So the car suffers -1 Agility and Reaction for every 2 points of armor that exceed it's body x 2. Since vehicle lack either stat they suffer no penalty regardless of how much armor you stack on them (at least from encumbrance rules).

Although Vehicles can only have body x 2 armor
According to arsenal, though drones can have x3.. and they can also have smart armor on top of that.

When you enter the vehicle, you gain the benefits of the vehicle's armor. If "functions the same as worn armor" means that all rules which apply to worn armor apply to vehicle armor, then you 1) only gain the benefit of the highest armor value and 2) all values are added when determining encumbrance.

This interpretation is quite obviously nonsense, as is Neraph's "animals with a stirrup are now vehicles" interpretation.

Actually, having the Stirrup doesn't make them into vehicles, only the act of connecting a Pilot program to the Stirrup causes that magical change.

"Functions like a vehicle" emphasis is mine. Like brings this into the level of comparison and provides a distinct but subtle difference from "is a vehicle" that has downstream effects.

"Functions like" means it retains its characteristics but will utilize rules related to vehicles.

"Is a vehicle" means that it will lose its characteristics and gain characteristics as if it were a vehicle.

Since it only functions like a vehicle and is not a vehicle it does not gain a number of mod slots equal to its body or 4 (whichever is higher) and thus cannot be modified like a vehicle since it lacks the attributes required for modifications to be made. That does lead to a situation where you could conceivably overmod a biodrone but that is quickly addressed in the vehicle modification rules by the restrictions on what types of vehicles a mod can be placed on thus working back to the different of "functions like" and "is a vehicle". The object in question is still not a vehicle so it does not qualify for any vehicle mods.

--



You gain the benefits of the vehicle's armor not the detriments. You situation would also be applied if you were shooting someone through a barrier.

Vehicle armor's statement "functions the same as worn armor" is for when attacks are made against the vehicle.

Beyond that encumbrance rules apply only for worn armor which the character does not wear a vehicle or barrier.

Exactly - rules like Vehicle and Drone Modifications. That's my whole point.

No, not those rules at all.

Yes. Those rules would be included in "rules related to vehicles."

Unless you can actually show that Vehicle and Drone modifications are not rules that are related to drones and vehicles.

I came to this conversation late but I have to say, why is anyone still arguing this point with the obvious troll?

Nothing else to do.

Neraph, that's a false point. It doesn't say that it "will utilize rules related to vehicles". *StealthSigma* said that, and, like the book, he meant within the context of controlling the biodrone's actions. You really have to stop pretending that sentences exist in little bell jars.

The whole point of this thread is to identify rules that, as written, are broken.

AS WRITTEN, the biodrone rules clearly have a problem.

They can be interpreted as meaning something they really clearly should not mean.

The fact that you CAN ALSO interpret them as meaning something else, does not change the fact that they really need to be re-written to be clearer.




-k

I don't agree that this is the same class of Broken Rule. We can't start damning the writers for failing to make every sentence stand alone; that's not English. Earlier, my example of the Respirator 'broken rule' was ignored:Does anyone seriously think, A) that this says the respirator works on non-inhalation, B) that this is a 'broken rule'?

The biodrone rules have *other* problems, but this is certainly not one of them. This is just English.

Probably not on the same scale of rules that are broken AS DESIGNED, but I still classify them as "stuff that needs errata". I would also classify respirators in the same boat.

As I stated before, technical writing requires a higher standard of clarity and focus than day-to-day language.



-k

That's true. If the rules were actually in a 'proper technical writing' genre, it would help a lot. To me, that's more of a wish for the entirety than a point about specifics like this, though. Ideally, all crunch would be one color/face, and all fluff would be another, and the two would be logically connected. Ideally.

Failing that ideal, I think it's a mistake to deliberately misunderstand (the respirator example) and call it a writing failure. It's just evidence that the book isn't not technical writing, that's all.

So you actually really want a 1000+ pages long rule books, as all conditions need to be stated in every sentence, not in just one sentence per rule.

Generally, when dealing with rules, if there are two ways to interpret something, and you can show that one way is consistent with the rest of the rules and one is not, then the first is the correct way to interpret it. So, while it might be nice to have clarification on some things, it's not really correct to say ambiguous rules are "broken".

The paragraph itself is one describing what rules the 'drones use - it mentions skills, but the paragraph itself is not Skill-specific: it is the general ruleset that the biodrone uses. As such, that sentence can and does include all rules for drones.

Again, that's not true. The paragraph is about how the biodrone is controlled. … Even if we didn't already know that they're not vehicles. (Might as well re-mention that most obvious context).

No, but both examples could have been very easily resolved by adding one or two words.

In fact, 90% of the "problem" rules in SR4A can be resolved in a similar fashion. I doubt the word count would rise from the corrections enough even alter the number of pages - at most you'd have to adjust some of the pretty margins a tiny bit.

Roleplaying games ARE technical manuals, more or less. They are instructional documents. As such, the writers CANNOT assume that their reader will "just understand" what they MEANT to say, and should take some care to make sure their text actually says what they meant.

Rules should say what they mean. It's a very simple idea.

But it's as much the job of the editors to catch this stuff as it is the writer's.

Compounding the problem is the agonizingly slow errata production on Catalyst's part. And FanPro/FASA before them.

Though I will say this isn't limited to Shadowrun - a lot of the RPG industry allows stuff that would get people in other publishing industries fired. And we, as the consumers, simply shrug our shoulders and say "eh" instead of demanding better service for our money.



-k

No, as has been said before that whole section is only about controlling bio-dorones and as such can only include rules pertaining to control of drones and nothing else.

After all, it's a paragraph about the Stirrup Interface modification. How could it have a scope outside of the Stirrup Interface itself?

Again, nobody's arguing that the rules shouldn't MEAN that it's talking about controlling drones rather than all drone rules in general, but that's not what the rules SAY.

There's RAI that's broken.

There's also RAW that's broken.

RAI is actually harder to fix. You need to do actual rules alteration and some playtesting to make sure the new configuration works.

RAW problems are just an editing job. Yet somehow it's taking just as long to see fixes there.




-k

He *is* arguing that the context of that paragraph is 'all rules', not 'Stirrup control rules'. That's false.

Except that it is, as that quote is from a section that only talks about controlling of drones.