He's arguing that that's what the rules AS WRITTEN say.

He himself in post 451 considers it to be broken, as written.

And he's right. AS WRITTEN, they simply state "use the drone rules".

What they SHOULD say is "use the rules for piloting or controlling drones".

The rule in question is simply written badly.



-k

Yes, but he's also claiming that the paragraph, under the Stirrup heading, which talks all about biodrone control options, has the context of 'basic rules for biodrones in general'. That's false.

Except it still doesn't allow a biodrone to qualify for vehicle modification rules. The first sentence you see in Arsenal for vehicle modifications.



Thus for a biodrone to qualify for vehicle modifications, you must prove that it is a drone and doesn't just function/behave like one. Every bit I have read on biodrones keep using the term "like". I have not read anything that says a biodrone IS a drone.

Except that "function" could refer to actual drone functionality, or to the rules themselves, as in "the rules function like this".

Again I'm not saying ya'lls interpretation of "what the rules intend" is wrong. Just that the text needs errata to clarify.



-k

You still haven't shown anything that supports the statement "A biodrone is a drone."









None of those sentences describing drones describe a biodrone (with the exception of the first, potentially).

Further....



That sentence clearly states that a drone is a vehicle. If we go back to the Combat section about Vehicle attributes we can determine which attributes are necessary for something to be a vehicle.

Condition Monitor- Vehicles do not suffer from Stun damage.
Handling Rating- Every vehicle has a Handling rating.
Sensors- Sensors are the vehicular equivalent of the Intuition attribute.
Acceleration- Vehicles have an Acceleration rating that determines their movement rates.
Speed- Speed is the reasonable high-end maximum velocity of the vehicle.

Do biodrones have all these qualities? No, they have none of those qualities.

Biodrones are not vehicles. Since biodrones are not vehicles they cannot be drones. Since they are not drones or vehicles they do not qualify for vehicle modification rules.

I. am. not. saying. a. biodrone. is. a. vehicle.

Just that they picked a bad wording.

Replace "functions" with "is operated" and the issue goes away.





-k

Neraph is saying it, KarmaInferno. The issue only exists if one deliberately ignores the context, and decides that 'functions as a vehicle' means 'becomes a vehicle' (because they obviously don't start as one). My point is precisely that, bad wording aside, the book in no way says that a biodrone becomes an actual vehicle. It is suboptimal, but that doesn't mean anything goes.

actually, in each of those cases, the rules indicate that *is* the case when the biodrone has a pilot in it... obviously, it has it's own node. if you specifically make it a biodrone run by a pilot program, well, obviously it's run by a pilot program. in the case that it is run by a pilot program, even those who don't think it turns into a drone per the RAW agree that it's supposed to *work* like a drone, so it should indeed be using sensor, because that's the rules for operating a drone, and you explicitly use those rules when you install a pilot. and, when it is controlled by a pilot program, that would in fact be it's initiative.

the problem is that all of those rules do (per RAW) and probably *should* (per RAI) work like that. mind you, even if you do try to do that much, you'll run into problems (after all, biodrones have no listed sensor rating, but the rules do tell you to use regular drone rules and regular drone rules tell you to use a sensor rating, so the rule is broken even if you don't accept the premise that the rule tells you to mount vehicle armor on the biodrone)

Certainly, Jaid. But we're talking about mounting vehicle armor.

And, while you're right that it's not at all explained (i.e., an actual Broken Rule), it's not hard to sub Intuition, etc.

Emphasis mine.

That's my point. It's the poor wording that opens up this can of worms (biodrone worms, no less) and actually does, as per RAW like I've quoted many times, and as per RAW that Jaid pointed out again, allows biodrones to make full use of all rules that affect drones (and, by extention, vehicles, as StealthSigma pointed out with his RAW findings also).

Also, thanks to Jaid, KarmaInferno, and any others who kept up my good fight while I was at work.

Lastly, thank you Jaid for bringing up something I mentioned a few pages ago also. Even assuming that biodrones don't follow all the rules for vehicles and drones, what attributes do they use for basically anything when piloted by their Pilot or by their Rigger? Using Intuition for Sensor makes logical sense, but it is purely in the realm of conjecture. But do you use the animal's Reaction or the Stirrup Interface/Commlink's Response for Defense Tests? Do they become immune to Stun? Why or why not?

And apparently enough people also notice the same thing I do that this should be firmly in place as a Broken Rule.

An actual 'broken rule', of the "not enough information" variety: The rules state that humanoid drones can use meta-human sized equipment. This presumably includes armor. And as I noted in another thread, since humanoid drones also have mechanical arms, they can use cyberlimb modifications, including cyberarmor.

A drone can ALSO have vehicle armor. The Otomo notably can have as much as 18 points of such armor*.

The rules completely fail to tell us, however, how hardened armor and non-hardened armor on the same subject interact.




-k


*-Does anyone else think that a combat-specced Otomo will be pretty much immune to anything short of military levels of power?

No. That's what 'bad wording aside' means: however bad you think the wording is, it's totally impossible to conclude that a biodrone becomes a vehicle. There's nothing about 'full' use of 'all' rules. It is only by deliberately pretending that the paragraph isn't solely about control systems, and by deliberately pretending that 'functions exactly as a drone' means 'becomes a vehicle', that you can reach this 'Broken RAW' conclusion. There are plenty of actual Broken Rules, but this isn't one of them.

Again, Neraph, the issue of Sensor/whatever has nothing at all to do with what we've been talking about. It is its own problem, having zero bearing on the issue we're actually discussing.

Not as bad as a Tomino is.


Function: to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate.
Exactly: in an exact manner; precisely; accurately; in every respect; just.

'functions exactly as a drone' = 'performs/works/operates precisely, accurately, and in every respect as a drone.'

Broken Rule.


I know, and my intent was to bring it up in addition to, as in this also.

You add the total armor rating together

20 Armor
20 Hardened
=40

When determining the value to see if the shot bounces off you compare it against 20 points of hardened armor. if it exceeds it then you simply roll the remaining armor and body together to reduce damage. As for armor Pen? Who knows, it all depends on how you want the reduction to apply to the numbers. I could also be entirely wrong, if you could throw down some page numbers of what your talking about ill take a look at it.

i think that's the problem... there *are* no page numbers when it comes to combining hardened and non-hardened armor. (though i agree, that's how i would handle it. AP would be counted towards hardened armor first as well)

Ignoring the part where the paragraph is describing the biodrone's behavior, not its means of modification, it does still warrant a rundown.

I suppose that statement of "functions like a drone" implies a biodrone with a pilot program is immune to stun damage. Check on that not making sense. It still has a nervous system even though there are wires all throughout it. Perhaps it does replace the CNS to a degree that it's now fully synthetic. I'd equate it closer to a pain editor if I were statting it out.

The animal is now an object when one considers magic used against it. Less sense, but still sensible if you think of it as a machine with biological actuators. But, when you turn the pilot program off, fluffy turns back into a living creature. How's that work?

What else?

Well, the complexities of applying drone piloting rules to an animal would certainly warrant a bit more text and perhaps a handy attribute substitution table. As it's written right now I'd have to crawl through several books to figure out how to use a biodrone (Augmentation, Core, perhaps details from Arsenal and Unwired..) It's rather ugly. Add to that consulting Running Wild for animal base stats

The RAI are clear. Sure, the RAW leaves a lot to be desired, and can be (deliberately) misinterpreted, but I don't think anyone's disputing what it's supposed to mean.

And that's why we have broken rules. The rules just got broken and the parts were put into several different books
Sometimes I think this was done purely to make me skim each and every SR book every other week... and often I find completely unrelated things in there that are nonetheless interesting and entertaining.

-CJ

Wait, what? I'm arguing that the RAW for biodrones does not grant them that attributes required for biodrones to be a vehicle and thus qualify for vehicle modification rules. Only by focusing on a single line and ignoring all others can you reach the conclusion that biodrones can be modified like vehicles. That's rules lawyering for you.

You've had multiple people arguing both sides of the issue.

That's generally a sign that a rule needs clarification or better wording.

If a rule was crystal clear in it's intent, there wouldn't BE arguments, at least not over the RAW.

I mean, yeah, there will be arguments, but over other stuff. We ARE gamers after all.



-k

Yeah, that was my point - there are reasonable extrapolations of how the rules SHOULD work, but the point of this thread is to identify rules which AS WRITTEN are broken, not to make extrapolations.

I personally would not let them stack, because if you do you get absurdities like sticking a couple of human sized mechanical arms with cyberarmor on a Boston class battleship, thereby increasing it's armor by a third. But again, that's not actually spelled out in the rules, it would be my GM house ruling on the issue.

For reference, I was talking about the Otomo, though the same issue applies to any humanoid drone, or any drone with a mechanical arm.

A rules saying "X is possible" but then completely failing to explain how to do X is kinda broken in my mind.



-k

Do remember that in Arsenal there is a Personal armor modification for vehicles.
There is also the rigger cocoon.

So You could have
20 Vehicle armor
6 Personal Armor
8 Armor from the cocoon all between you and the bullets coming at you.

With no real idea on how those interact.

They stack. That's not really a problem, although it does mean you can stack up a very protected driver. It's not really a balance issue, you just have to break the vehicle *before* killing the driver.

The multi-armored Otomo, on the other hand, gets pretty silly. I'd extrapolate the 'vehicle encumbrance' penalties so that your Otomo was (literally) crawling.

Once again, 'functions as a drone' doesn't mean 'becomes a vehicle'. It is inappropriate to shoehorn definitions into an out-of-context sentence.

They should have worked out their barrier rules better I think.

I think I would have liked AP better if instead of a - to the AP rating of something. They gave you +hits < Armor Rating of target.

So lets say I had a gun that was:

5P +3AP
with ammo that was +1P +3AP

for a grand total of 6P +6AP

I get 4 net hits.
When I'm figuring out my penetration I do:
6+4 = 10 That's my damage value
I add +6AP OR the max rating of the armor the guy is wearing, which ever is lowest.
So in this case, that give me a total penetration of 16.

If the guy has 8 points of armor, 8 DV made it through thanks for soaking.
if the guy had 4 points of armor, I'd only have had 14 penetration, so 10 points of damage would have made it through.
So if I then had 3 points of armor from a cybertorso, I'd still take 9 DV (the extra 2ap are still there and partially punch through the cyberarmor)

Now here you're right. "Functions as a drone" can't mean that. "Functions exactly as a drone," on the other hand, means that, regardless of context. It is inappropriate to partially quote relevant sections.


Outlaw Star's predecessor?

No, the 'exactly' is still subject to the context and scope of the section. I think you'll find that I didn't quote, I paraphrased; the important distinction that I was making in my own words is 'functions as'/'is', just as it was the first six times I did so.

You can't escape English when playing a game who's rules are in English. This is the exact meaning of that rule, regardless of context. Because of the specific and precise language used, biodrones use all options available to drones - which includes those for Vehicle and Drone upgrades.

Also, you didn't "paraphrase" the rule - you edited. Your text was the same as the book's, except where you left out the word "exactly." A paraphrase uses similar but different words, not the same words minus some.

I didn't use quotation marks, because it wasn't a quotation. I didn't claim it was, at any point. If anything, I was paraphrasing you.

Again, no. The word 'exactly' doesn't break the scope of the paragraph: control mechanics. There is no such thing as 'regardless of context'. The biodrone is Piloted 'in every respect' as a drone is Piloted. 'Functions (exactly) as' does not mean 'is'. It is not the function of a drone to take vehicle mods, even if you were right about utterly ignoring the context of that sentence.

I've seen people arguing for one side over two words in a single sentence. An interpretation that requires a non-existent interpretation of the word function to mean that something becomes something else.

--



You're still misinterpreting the words and trying to twist them into saying something they cannot. Exactly is an adverb that modifies the verb functions. That means that the biodrone functions exactly like a drone or that the biodrone uses the same rules for whichever rules apply. The question becomes what functions of a drone does a biodrone have? For starters, vehicle modification is not a function of a vehicle. It is a function performed on the vehicle by a separate entity. Primarily some sort of a character with the appropriate mechanic skill.

Did you even see the definitions of the words "function" and "exactly?" If not, go look them up now. Those two words work outside the normal rules and context of a sentence, simply based on the definitions of those words - the meaning of them extends beyond the chosen topic.

It is because a biodrone now performs, works, and operates precisely, accurately, and in all ways as a regular drone that it is now capable of accepting vehicle and drone modifications, since regular drones are able to accept those modifications.

And besides, one single sentence of the Stirrup Interface accounts for 20% of the rules for Stirrup Interfaces, excluding Move-By-Wire system's rules. So one sentence is very important.

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on...

...altering the wording slightly completely removes the issue.




-k

Those words do not "work outside the normal rules and context of a sentence".

... True. The words do not work outside the normal rules of a sentence, but they do extend beyond the original context, for sure.

For example:

"Fish have gills. Fish are also animals. Although fish live in the water, all animals have gills."

That paragraph is clearly talking about fish - however, the phrase "all animals" extends the meaning of the last part to include land and air animals, as well as microscopic ones.

The wording is the important part.

In a paragraph talking about anything, using the words "functions exactly as X" turns the sentence into a much more broad, general meaning. It changes the whole context of the sentence.


Absolutely.

Your example doesn't fit. This is closer to what you're arguing:
----- 'Biodrones can be controlled by a Pilot. Vehicle drones can be controlled by a Pilot. Biodrones are vehicle drones.'
Within the context of 'control by Pilot programs', biodrones 'function exactly as' other drones (because that's where the Pilot program rules are). (And yes, the rules are not clear on how to actually *follow* that, as we've all agreed).

No, 'functions (exactly) as' doesn't change the context, which is 'biodrone control systems'. Do you think that saying driving a car is 'just like riding a bike' means that the car becomes a bike? Or is this phrase constrained by the relevant context to mean 'it is just like riding a bike in the context of forgetting the skill'?

I disagree that that is the context of the paragraph. It isn't until the second sentence that skills even come up - that means skills and skill use is not the topic of the sentence (topic sentence is the first in a paragraph).

And "it is just like riding a bike" is different than saying "it is exactly like riding a bike." The sintax is very, very important.

On the contrary: "Exactly: in an exact manner; precisely; accurately; in every respect; just." It's *your* definition.

We're not talking about skills. Early in this thread, I made the mistake of saying 'skills' and assuming you'd know what I meant. You didn't, so I switched to 'control systems' pages ago. The context is 'these are the rules for the Stirrup Interface (a control system for biodrones)'.

That's not a very accurate definition of 'topic' you're using, either, but there's no use going into that.

Vehicle modification is not a function of a drone. It is a function of a mechanic. You still haven't shown how the rules prove that a biodrone is a vehicle in order to have it qualify for vehicle modifications.

I dunno dude, I'd put some Bulk Ammo Modification on a biodrone, if you catch my drift.

Slap a Pintle Mount on 'er, know what I mean?

Improve the Handling?

Vehicle related double entendre?

(hurr hurr hurr)

Extra entrances and exits perchance?
Or perhaps give the engine a boost?

This is fun!

Shadowrun furries everywhere rejoice.


As far as the debate on this it seems pretty simple to me. Context always matters in natural spoken languages. The rule books are written in a natural language (my copy: English) and not in a technical format. Probably because it would be harder to write the book in the first place and also they wanted it to be more interesting to read and pull in a larger audience to actually buy the book and make money for their for profit company. Shocking.

So context of the rules matter. A rule that states "functions exactly like a drone" while in the scope of speaking specifically and only about the control mechanism indicates that it is specifically only a part of that control mechanism. True, it is poorly worded, but the slightest amount of common sense throws out the idea that after installing a stirrup interface and ONLY after then putting in a pilot program the animal suddenly becomes a drone. I think this is less a case of a broken rule and more a case of broken interpretation due to not editing this as most people would assume common sense would prevail and not need clarification.

The problem is that with items/devices/concepts that do not exist in real life, "common sense" is a pretty poor guide.

Oh come on. Everyone knew what is was supposed to mean.

And yeah, I wouldn't want the books to be too much more like a technical manual. Those kind of texts are way too boring. This is supposed to be a game, not homework.

Maybe in the case of the biodrones, nut generally speaking the rules section of RPGs is a technical manual. As such it should be logicallly sound and well written. Interesting but ambiguous and/or contradicting stuff should be left to the fluff section.

Please tell me this involves a penile implant with some sort of implanted gland.....

I prefer to think of that as the 'Pop-Up Turret.'

With a "water" cannon?

Softgel rounds with a DMSO/Slab cocktail. I'll make sure the softgel is off-white, too.

:/ Don't be the guy who takes things from innuendo to baldly stated, StealthSigma. Sigh.

Ridin' the biodrone, baby! Woo!

IIRC I think shifters can be made in to biodrones. Yeah that wold mean one really wierd char. Quick load a pilot on me I need to saok the LMG fire...