The point is not that you cannot recreate the canon spells with the same drain code but that you can create spells that are more powerful than the canon spells. There is for example the hidden Armor spell or the (Improved) Undetectability Spell. The former has the same drain code as the canon spell. the latter costs a mere +1 drain.

Softweave armor is changed to act as follows: Softweave is a modification that may be applied to light armors, making it easier to wear for weaker individuals. Armor with this modification is treated as half its value for purposes of determining encumbrance. This modification may only be applied to an item with 6 armor or less. If your total armor value exceeds 6, then this modification has no effect. Form Fitting Body Armor may be affected by this upgrade, reducing encumbrance on that armor to 1/4 armor value if all armor worn has the modification. Form Fitting Body Armor does not count against the maximum limit of 6 for purposes of this modification.

Then, SecureTech armor may be affected by softweave, but is counted towards total armor for determining if your armor can be affected by softweave.



Okay that write up is really ugly and probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Some help rewriting it to make it clearer would be appreciated. But in the mean time, here's some examples that should clarify the intent:

Example 1: Character with body 2 feels really squishy, decides to get some softweave armor. He picks out a lined cloak, with 6/4 armor, and applies softweave. He also picks up a underbody half suit for 4/1 armor, and applies softweave to that as well. Putting both of these on gives him 10/5 armor, but for encumbrance purposes, it counts as (6/2 = 3 and 4/4 = 1) a total of 4 armor, which is acceptable for a 2 body character to wear without penalty. The character can choose to pick up some Securetech gear with softweave, such as helmet, and Shin Guards, with softweave which would give him an additional 3 impact armor, bringing his total up to 8/2 = 4, so he wouldn't be encumbered. However, if he picked up Leg and Arm Casings, his ballistic armor would be raised to 7, so even if he had softweave on everything, the basic limitation (total not counting underarmor cannot exceed 6) has been violated, so he would face full encumbrance.

In essence, this basic setup (ending with 10/9 maximum armor) is the armor that someone at 2 to 4 body will expect to have. Beyond that, it becomes more efficient to use non-softweaved armor


Example 2: A character with 4 body can choose to wear the setup described above, but he can actually afford to wear it without any encumbrance without the softweave. So he decides to abandon the softweave to save some nuyen, and use the capacity slots on other upgrades.

Example 3: A character with 6 body gains nothing from wearing the softweave, easily wearing that with no encumbrance, and instead grabs an Armored Jacket, Undersuit, and SecureTech, for a total of 14/12 armor. Just like now.

Since SR4A doesn't allow more boni than base attribute, you need a high body to profit from that.

Hrm, that could work, even though it uses stuff from Bogota! and hence opens a wholly new can of worms.

Well it uses the name/fluff from something from WAR!, the mechanic was changed drastically. If you're afraid of someone taking liberties and claiming if you allow that the rest of WAR! should be allowed, it's not hard to change the name to something else.

Wait? English was ever pure?

I thought she was the dockside doxy of the linguistic world, rolling her johns for spare words they had in their pockets?

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology!

For the life of me I can't remember the quote correctly or who said it (Terry Pratchett?) but it went something like:
"English is that language that lures other languages into a dark ally, beats them over the head, and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

Somebody on the forums here has it in his sig... TJ?

EDIT: Yeah, TJ has it and he's the first poster on this page.

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology!

In order for a word to be "correct" it has to be generally accepted by the public at large.

you can't call it correct, because it means it hasn't been widespread enough to be included in the public record

Provably false. The words at http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html are "correct" and generally unknown by the public at large. Some words grow in popularity (such as "labelmate" and "manga" and eventually get put into the dictionary along with other perfectly cromulent words.

By your own logic, in order to be included in the public record, it needs to have widespread use first. That means widespread use of "incorrect" words needs to be acceptable for the language to evolve. Since language is clearly evolving, you may want to rethink what you mean by "correct". I do not think it means what you think it means.

I will add this: dictionaries are not special. They do not determine, prove, or dictate what's 'real', 'right', etc.

UrbanDictionary is as good as the OED, in terms of 'worthiness'.

(Labelmate, for the record, is a trademark like Xerox, and therefore is a proper name and *must* be considered a real word consequently.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labelmate

It's in the dictionary. Clearly you've never heard of the word under the meaning in the dictionary. Willing to bet the majority of the public also doesn't know the word.

What you believe is not necessarily knowledge.

After working tech support, I'm surprised people remember how to breathe and work the "Funny Picture Box That Makes The World Come To Me, And Where I'm Always Right".

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology!

Edit: if we wanna get correct and say we're speaking latin, bonus has to be bona, as bonus is gendered. Then the plural becomes bonum.

How often did distressed people confess to you they deleted the internet?

Priceless.

Watch this bit and then skip to this bit.

"Why is no one laughing?"

Because they all have MBAs!

You have NO idea. One professor (who teaches MBA students) didn't even know what room he taught in. Once tried to tell me that he was in a room on a floor that didn't exist of a building he wasn't in.

That I never, ever wanted to take another one ever again.

How often did distressed people confess to you they deleted the internet?

Pah, "I deleted the internet" is one of the least complex support requests I've encountered. At least the user knows what's wrong, what happened, and the desired result.
Now, when it comes to "I uh... I can't find that thingy, you know, the blue one up there in the upper left corner of my display, do something!", - it gets a little bit funnier. But most users just go "Everything's not working, immediately fix!"

Pah, "I deleted the internet" is one of the least complex support requests I've encountered. At least the user knows what's wrong, what happened, and the desired result.

... even if what they have said makes no sense and has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually went wrong, what happened, and the desired result.

Actually it is pretty clear what the guy did. He deleted his Internet Explorer icon.

Actually it is pretty clear what the guy did. He deleted his Internet Explorer icon.

It sounded to me like he had moved the shortcut to his web-browser to the bin.

That's a pretty big assumption. He COULD be a master hacker who literally deleted the entirety of the internet, then thought a random tech support guy could undo it. You never know!

Hrm.... this sounds like a fun character concept. I want to play a hacker who believes the Matrix is evil, and his goal is to crash the Matrix entirely and free humanity from... wait this sounds familiar...

It sounded to me like he had moved the shortcut to his web-browser to the bin. If that's the case, it isn't deleted; the program it links to isn't deleted either; neither the shortcut nor the program it links to are a global network infrastructure itself, even if they graphically lay out resources stored on such an infrastructure, such as text and image files transferred via http and ftp.

It's like if someone phones you up saying they have destroyed all the roads in the world when all they have actually done is lost the keys to their car that allows them to drive on those roads. They've totally misdiagnosed what's wrong, what happened, and the desired result.