I go with the point made earlier. Who wants infected body parts.

If the vampire regenerates them and you have a market for them. Why not cut a deal with the vampire to harvest parts and split the money with him. Longer term gain and no loss of rep. Is it better to sell one kidney or 20 kidneys.

Even assuming Type O worked with Infected (and it doesn't), you're right: no one wants an Infected kidney. Best case, it's rejected; worst case, you die.

I don't recall anything in the rules saying it doesn't work with infected. Common sense says that if you put infected parts in someone they become infected.

No, becaust this specific strain of HMVV has the Infection power for vector. No use of the power (which requires draining the Essence of whoever you want to infect to 0), no transmission...

Yes, that'd be between the best case and the worst case. You'd be a carrier, maybe. It's all house rules.

I was just talking about a house rules situation (no Type-O Infected), because there are no rules for Infected organ donation, either. (AFAIK.)

I was talking about type o system working on the infected.

I would imagine that becoming one of the living undead might alter your type-o ness just a little

And so was I: they (vampires) can have it, but it doesn't do anything. Type O only reduces the Essence cost of non-Delta, and a vampire will need real Delta in the first place. Therefore, it's easier just to house rule that they can't have it, instead of the RAW (they can have it, it just does nothing).

It's my fault for accidentally saying 'Infected' instead of 'vampires'. For non-Regenerating Infected, Type O could certainly help. Ghouls, for example.

A Ghoul shadowrunner would die within the first 10 minutes of game play
And what streetdoc is going to operate on a ghoul? given the.. unfortunate /touch/ infection pathogen.

I didn't say it would work, I said it made sense.

In seriousness, yes, all the rules are incredibly broken, but we all manage to play the game anyway. I bet you could find a few ghoul characters played by Dumpshock users.

I'm sure i could. Although why didn't the first Security WageMage they came across just nuke them from Astral Space until they died i'll never know. Probably a nice GM.

Indeed. There's almost no reason for any dual-natured (non-projecting) entity to exist, because they'd be killed so easily, as we all know. It's just something you have to ignore to play the game.

Except that Type O would work for vampires.


(Weird, my new PDF reader copies lots of spaces Edit: and then the post takes them away so I sound like I'm crazy )

Note the important part: "is considered delta grade for purposes of interacting with a type O body."

And in order for a vampire's regeneration to not reject bioware it needs to be delta grade. So, combine 'is considered delta grade' with 'needs to be delta grade' and you get success. The i.e. part is correct for the time of the book's printing, because when augmentation came out, grades of bioware had no purpose (when 'interacting with the body') besides reducing the essence cost. The ability to bypass regeneration's rejection of ware didn't yet exist.

As I said before, it says "(i.e., reduce Essence Costs by half, though nuyen prices remain the same)". That means that's what "purposes of interacting with a type O body" means, and nothing else. You can't go assuming things about printing timing.

As everyone said earlier in the thread, you're free to house rule that. Nothing wrong with house rules.

RAW, sure, you're right, RAI, likely not.

And it is fairly questionable as far as English is concerned once you consider future printings.

"Off the rack, basic bioware is considered delta-grade for purposes of interacting with a type O body" pg 20 augmented

Again, nothing wrong with 'house' interpretations of the rules. You're supposed to do that. I don't play 'RAW', but it's what we discuss things using.

Triggvi, we've already quoted that 2, maybe 3 times. That's what we're talking about, man… for the whole thread.

Personally, and once again, this is a house rule situation, I'd agree with Dahrken: the virus changes your DNA, and there's no way Type O includes Infected DNA. That's not RAW, either.

The novel "World War Z: An Oral Histroy of the Zombie War" deals with infected parts from China being sold to a black clinic in Brazil where they are implanted into rich Westerners who can't get to the top of the donor lists in their own countries.

Infection was, fast.

I figure that's likely the best way to do it as well. Infection would alter you away from Type O.

RAW vampires can have Type O, but it doesn't technically do anything.
RAI vampires can have Type O, and it is awesome.
CS vampires can't have Typoe O.

raw vampires can have it and it works normally. The quote from pg 20 augmented. I agree it is cheesy way of getting bioware. As a GM i would not allow it.

Again, no. That's not the RAW, unless you have an update or errata file for Augmentation that changes 'i.e.' to 'e.g.'. As we all know, it really doesn't matter in practice (i.e., in real games). If something's legal but the GM/table doesn't want it, it won't be allowed anyway; if something's illegal but the GM/table wants it, it will be allowed regardless.

RAW says that Vampires need delta-grade bio. RAW states that any character with Type O treats basic bioware as delta for the 'purposes of interacting with the body'. There is no rule stating any incompatability with the Type O quality and Vampirism, nor is there any rule saying Type O doesn't apply to Vampires in the same way. You can assume that the infection changes your DNA in such a way that it isn't compatable, but by true RAW, you are incorrect.

Also, ghouls can be non-infectious, and it actually costs less karma. Makes wanting to play one much easier.

No, you have to include the i.e. I.e. is different from e.g. E.g. is 'for example' and i.e. is 'this is exactly what it means and nothing else'

So, 'i.e., reduces essence cost' means 'what was previously said means to reduce essence cost and nothing else'

You can't read parts of rules in seclusion.

RAI I'm sure that e.g. should have been used instead of i.e., but there you have it.

Yes: if you intentionally ignore parts of the text, you can make it say different things. The rule clearly says that the one and only function of Type O is that non-delta bioware has the Essence cost of delta. It is compatible with being a vampire, just worthless.

This is just for the sake of argument, of course. In a game, the GM will decide, and that's the end of it.

Yeah, X-Calibur, I'd totally make the non-infectious quality *cost* BP. It's ridiculous.

"I didn't finish reading the book." "You stopped reading at the word 'pig's'? It wasn't even the end of the sentence."

was that a personal attack? I hope I am reading that wrong.

I agree that it comes to the GM to decide if he wants it in his game.

Google is your friend

Ha, in what universe could that be a personal attack?

Is delta grade bioware harder to destroy, malfunction or more costly to repair? Because obviously type-o would not add those effects. That's what I thought that only for essence part was all about.

Yes, it is. Augmentation, p127.

Very correct, but it also technically means (because it uses i.e. instead of e.g.) that 'able to be used in something that regenerates' is another of those effects that does not get added. A small difference, but that is usually what separates RAW from RAI.

"This damn cold... Don't worry. I could cut open your chest and sew a dead cat in there. You wouldn't get an infection. Not with the antibiotics I'll shoot into you."



I would have to hazard a guess that a vampire might be a little choosy about which doc he'd go to to get bioware installed. Someone reliable. Someone who has a rep for keeping patient confidentiality. Someone off the books.

If the vamp was really smart, he'd engineer it so that if anything bad happened to him as a result of any of the doc's actions, bad bad things would happen to the doc. And make this clear to the doc before going under the knife.




-karma

No it doesn't. Latin fail. I.E. means "that is." It is a clarification. It in no way means that it is the entirety of the meaning and nothing else could possibly be included. It is clarifying that it only counts as delta for direct interaction with the body not for such things as cost or availability. Nothing about that sentence so much as implies that it shouldn't count for Regen rejecting it.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbrevi...ns/f/ievseg.htm

It is indeed clarification. Specifically, restatement. That implies that the new phrasing fully replaces the previous.

Yes, exactly. Kindly show me anywhere in that which states that i.e. means "exactly that and nothing else."

I assure you it says no such thing, and even if it did, since when was about.com the authority on either Latin or English?

Were that the case, the previous statement serves no purpose and would not be included, rendering the the entire concept of i.e. completely unnecessary. No, it implies nothing of the sort. It is clarification. If you want to act as though it is a restatement fully replacing the previous, then you are using nonstandard English, and you may as well say that i.e. means frog-farts, which causes the sentence to mean the exact opposite of what it says, because you're just making up your own rules anyway at that point.

You guys should keep arguing about this. Someone is WRONG on the INTERNET and all they need is your fiery guidance to set them straight.

Back on topic: Type-o is really expensive. Vampire is realy expensive. The two of them together make a character with very little BP left for anything like skills or Wares. For 400bp, it's not overpowered. Depending on your GMs rewards of cash/karma, it might have a great deal of potential to be overpowered, but its not, out of the box. I think it's fine. I'd allow it in my game.

That's entirely incorrect, Rystefn. There's no reason that restatement makes the previous statement 'serve no purpose'.

If it "fully replaces" the previous statement, then there is no reason for the previous statement to still exist. The fact that it does shows us that the latter statement does not, in fact, "fully replace" it. As a writer, when I "fully replace" one statement with another, it is with the delete key. If the previous statement still exists and is still being used in thew work in question, then it has not been "fully replaced" at all. It has been clarified, but not "fully replaced."

That's not what that phrase means.

There's nothing wrong with about.com; don't be mean to things simply for disagreeing with you. In any case, every reference you check will give that same meaning for 'i.e.'.

Which meaning? The one on about.com, which does not disagree with me, or the one you assert? They are different, you know. I've seen no reference anywhere, including the linked about.com article, which attempted to claim i.e. means "exactly that and nothing else" except this thread. In fact, the about.com you think disagrees with me specifically says that i.e. indicates a clarification, which is what I said. Really. Go look again. I'll wait.

Neither. I was referring to your repeated redefining of 'fully replace' to create a straw man.

And you're doing it again. I never said that 'i.e.' wasn't for clarification. I think you'll find that I explicitly stated that it is. So is 'e.g.'; it's irrelevant, and no one is disputing it.

LoL... Yes, I'm the one redefining things. I mean, when I "fully replace" the wiper blades on a car, the old ones are generally still there as well. And when you "fully replace" a light bulb, I suppose you leave the old one in the socket, too?

Of course accusing me of attacking a straw man while doing so yourself is the icing on the hypocrisy cake here, since I never accused you of saying i.e. wasn't for clarification. I accused you of narrowing the type of clarification so much as to make it a waste to have even said the previous bit in the first place, which you did.

"Fully replace" was perhaps poor wording, but what he's saying is essentially correct.

I disagree. What he's saying is incorrect. "Fully replace" may have been poor wording, but it is no more and no less incorrect than "exactly this and nothing more." I.e. does not mean that, and it never has. It indicates a rewording for clarity. An anticipation that there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the previous statement because it was somewhat ambiguous (or because its intended audience have a well deserved reputation for insisting that words mean things they clearly do not mean), perhaps.

Allow me to draw a parallel, if you will. Say we were talking about the rules of American football, rather than ShadowRun. Say further that the expanded rule book had a passage that read as follows: "When playing the Two Completes for a First Down variation of the game, the offensive team gains first downs in a different manner, i.e. they do not gain a first down for progressing ten yards." Does this mean that gaining first downs in a different manner means only that you do not gain first downs for progressing ten yards and nothing more? Or does it mean that that there is also a different way to gain first downs? By your reading, in the Two Completes for a First Down variation of American football, there is no way for the offensive team to gain a first down.

Those are both physical objects, not parts of sentences.

I wish I knew more about football, so I could tell if you are using i.e. correctly.

Time for some research, I suppose.

You should be using 'e.g.' in that example.

Ok, found the rule you were talking about. In this case, the author would be using i.e. incorrectly. You use i.e. to clarify or specify, and you cannot do that to only half of the statement's idea.

The correct form for your example would be:

"When playing the Two Completes for a First Down variation of the game, the offensive team gains first downs in a different manner, i.e. instead of gaining a first down for progressing ten yards, they gain a first down for two pass completions."

Of course, it's not a very good place for an i.e. to begin with, but there you have it.