*Facepalm*

Well, he never asked if I should change or not. The probability still remains at 33% for each door, regardless of one wrong door being revealed. My chance of winning if I don't switch remains at 33%. If I switch, however, my chance of winning increases to 66%. That is, at least, the way I understand it.

@Draco18s

You know a referance in Informatik is something different to a referance in written language.


Ähm, referances work more like that.
A) X=Y +3
Y= X/2

B) Using the formulas in A meaning, X= 6 for our Problem.
(You see, the referance gives you additional information, but the the result we are interested in stays the same)

(On a short note for a rulebook it ismore like A+B+C+D-> X . (Mostly none of the information exept the X are given). The auther does not give how he got to the rules he has written and what he thinks the referance/general rule should mean for his ruling or why/how his ruling is deducted the way it is. But since this all is missing, we are to assume (talking RAW), that his deductions are correct no matter how wrong they seem)
Referances are mostly given in sientific work. There they go to other books or sometimes artikles written a decades ago. If you would need to find them to get the right information out of the
paper, I would say the guy writing the paper is an ass. (Actually you use your diploma for something like that)

And even if you give a referance to the same piece you are writing, it is very bad writing if the referance can change the meaning of what you wrote.

If you want to compare it to a programm: A book is a already executed programm, having saved all the wanted data. What you talk about is stealing the referance from the table of the author. Of course he could not write, because he is missing information. But if he has already written it down (the programm has already been executed) you may take it away, it won't change anything in the results.

Except that this analogy is wrong.

The books aren't the output data of a computer program. They are the computer program.
The program as we see it may be the compiled binary and not the original source, but it is still code.

1) Full: This is the full text. The following two are leaving out superfluous parts of this text, in order to reduce it to its core.



2) Irion (and a handfull of others): This is, according to you, the complete rule. Nothing relevant is missing here. You could use it without ever taking a single glance at the "Hardened Armor" description.



3) Rest of the World: This is all that is necessary here, as the actual rule isn't in the same paragraph (hence the reference).



Right so far?

Bye
Thanee

Quick question... is falling damage able to bypass ItNW?

Characters soak falling damage with Body + half Impact Armor. Unless the character with ItNW is allergic to the ground, they would get half of the armor granted by ItNW against the fall.

So, the answer is Yes, Falling damage can bypass ITNW, if the fall is from high enough.

"How far up are you gonna levitate that guy anyway?"

"Far enough."




-k

@Thanee
Short notice:
My definition of RAW is quite simple:
The interpretation must not be contradicted by ANYTHING written in the rules. One contradiction, no matter how weak, and it is out.

So short: The only reason I am able to still stand by my interpretation is, that "to be treated as" does not imply much (only general approach). Would they have written "using the rules of" my argumentation would fail.

Mechanically, "to be treated as" and "Using the rules of" are functionally identical. So you fail anyways.

Yeah, they're equivalent.

How are you able to play the game at all?



... that you are very stubborn!

Nothing wrong there, but you really should be able to realize how weak (and that is quite an understatement still) your argument actually is.

Bye
Thanee

@Thanee

As I would be so stupid and play RAW.

Just take a look at the "social rules"...


Depends, what you define as "weak" I guess.
What was brought up against my point, short of "it is weak", "you are stupid" etc.?

Draco18s is the only one really trying, and he now to argues a printing is a program.


@Draco18s

You are aware that paper/a book is not interactive?
If you want to see it as code, you end up with a code without any variable,pointer, loop etc.
Try changing words in the document, I assure you, other words won't be affected.


Sometimes it is helpfull to read text like code (or even rewrite it as such) to get an unterstanding. Thats mostly if there are used a lot of cases.

But "referance" for books has a completly different meaning than for programs. (Mostly due to the limitation of books and text in general)
In a sientific book I would need to state why the information I give is different from what is said in the reference.
So the work I do with the information of the reference has to be in the book. (As does the reason I come up with any information)
In a work of fiction, this would be quite silly to do.
Having one page written, why the rule is like it is, would be kind of annoying. (Helpfull to get the intention of the author so)
A program needs to have those parts. It has to work with what the input is.
This means: We can't have any idea in general what aspects of the information, he is refering to, the author thought to be important for his ruling and which he did not .

If you want to stay by the rules as written you can't argue suspected intention of the author.
You have to assume every word the author wrote was meant to be there and every word he did not write was meant to not be there.

So a reference has close to no standing against a directly written rule ingeneral. (This is something generally true in free writing)

For your interpretation you have to assume the author made a mistake. If you assume this, every bit of Raw could also be a mistake.
So to argue RAW you would first need to arguee that the wording of RAW was not a mistake. You would/could probably use the fluff to argue that, thus giving the fluff a higher standing than RAW, in a RAW discussion.

If every word that the author wrote was meant to be there, and if every word that the author did not write was meant to not be there, then editors would be out of a job, and errata would never have to be released. However, it is safe to assume that the author is human, and therefore imperfect. Authors sometimes make mistakes, as do the editors checking the author's work. Sometimes a rule here or there is overlooked, because while it is clear to the author how the rule works, not everyone who plays the game will be able to interpret it unambiguously. If the author's intent isn't perfectly clear from the text, then it is up to us to decide what is both the most reasonable interpretation of the rule, and what is the most fair interpretation of the rule.

@bobbaganoosh
Correct.
Making a RAW interpretation unreasonable.

I don't think anyone called you "stupid"?

The explanation, why your point is weak, is on the previous pages.

Bye
Thanee

A program doesn't need to be interactive in order to be a program.



Is a program. It doesn't take any input and only prints a single line of output, but it's still a program.

Also, the core book DOES have variables. What do you think "Body" "Armor" and "Willpower" are? They're keywords that indicate a spot on the character sheet that holds a value that varies from sheet to sheet. A programming language doesn't need pointers in order to be a programming language (javascript gets by just fine without them). Nor do you need loops (and the core rules have those too: they're not defined as such, but check the combat section, combat is divided into rounds and each round has an order...).

The whole point I'm making is that the rule book is a set of instructions. A computer program is also a set of instructions.

The difference is that programming languages are instructions that a machine is meant to follow, whereas rules for a game are instructions that the GM and players are meant to follow (but unlike machines, we can interpret those rules differently from case to case*).

*Another reason why everyone should play the "Make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich" game, in which you try to detail as exactly as possible how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and another person follows those instructions to the letter (once someone made a typo. "Put lip on table." It was quite humorous).

Personally we run it as modified DV and AP applies, just like hardened armor.

I can see why some would say otherwise, but really when it gets down to defining the meaning of the word meaning, its probably a stretch. The simplest explanation is it uses all the rules as hardened armor, which is consistent, doesn't break anything, and I see no reason to argue semantics to fix something that isnt broke.

But if I were to run it without AP factored in, I'd only use the unmodified DV. Either its modified or it isnt, no cherry picking.

Except that each leads to wildly different results.

It would, but to each their own. It seems disingenuous to me to pick the modified DV from hardened armor rules and ignore the AP per the ITNW section.

Why is using modified DV and AP a problem to begin with? It results in skill and ammunition type factoring in to whether the critter takes damage, rather than just what type of weapon you use.
Why would weapon and skill matter but not ammunition?

If base DV is the determined by the weapon, why wouldnt you adjust for AP of the weapon, or bullets which is the only object actually touching the critter.

So interpertations of the english language aside, why go out of the way for something counterintuitive and a stretch of comprehension skill?

It might help if the Search function permitted phrases that include words of three letters or fewer but if people have a TLDR attitude, they're just going to ask the same question again and receive the same "here we go again" responses rather than necroread. If there's one thing history teaches us, it is that we don't learn from history.

How about this: Ask your GM. However he thinks it works is then how it works at your table.

If you are the GM then you decide what makes the most sense to you then that is how it works.

Though really, it's just hardened armor

On the other hand, *discussion* boards are just about the worst way to archive knowledge, and maybe each generation enjoys talking about things for themselves. Now, if there were a nice wiki of Frequently-and-Infrequently Asked Questions…

Situationally - for example, Materialization Spirits don't fall.


It's quite easy to counter with "the fact that they added a direct reference to the rules for Hardened Armor fulfills your requirement that they put 'using the rules of' - just in a different format." We're now arguing in circles for three pages.

You know, this reference is exactly linked to the formulation. So it really does not help.

You can't really argue logic too, because a spirit having an immunity to fire getting his Armor against fire halfed by fire is kind of stupid.
Rules for bypassing armor make no sense at all as do nethits because there are no weak spots to aim for.
(An example where a reference is used that way:

Works the same way, uses the rules of, the things said in.... fully apply etc. And after the referance is given, the rules are not mentioned. (And this is a reference from one book to another, so it would be quite useful to mention the rules. Unlike a reference to rules beeing written 50 words before.)

As a side note: Would you say, that non-conductivity gets halved against SnS or lightning.

What you can arguee is gamebalance and expectation from the general rules.
AP and net hits are expected to be applyed and spirits would be immortal if AP or net hits would not apply. (It actually does not matter which is the case, because both would cause severe problems)
Yes, it is never said like that, but it is always (in each special case) ruled that way.

I found another rule that make me laugh



Rules are written by humanS. you need only one human to make mistakes, see what they can make whit teamwork. Rules need interpretation, they can't be used as RAW.
That why lawyers exist: Rules are stupids, full of nonsense, and you can read them in all ways you want.

The Judge have the final word, and in RPG, the GM is the Judge.

*Take a seat and popcorn*

@Minimax le Rouge
Well, that is not a bad rule. It would solve some problems....

Thats even much better than what I tried to show here.

Non-conductivity (insulating, fire-retardant) dice aren't halved because they are specifically mentioned as being an armor bonus.

"resisted with half-impact plus non-conductivity" for example.

Interesting point I haven't considered. Is the armor halved and then doubled (or vice versa)? That is a little weaksauce.

But at this point, Irion, you're dancing well beyond your original point. Adding other layers of confusion doesn't make your point any more solvent at the end of the day. As if by saying "none of it makes sense so I'm not wrong" really doesn't advance any position.

I'm with you there is some vagueness in RAW regarding ITNW (if only that was the only instance), and in the end each GM will have to decide, but I think 80-90% will agree all the hardened rules apply by the simplest explanation and nothing quoted directly contradicts that.

Proving something is unclear isn't the same as proving you're right by RAW or by RAI.

No, because Nonconductivity, Insulation, ect, are not listed as armor - they are Armor Modifications. Since ItFire is listed as an actual armor rating it gets halved from the elemental effect also.


No, the creature gsets its Magic x2 armor against fire, which is promptly halved from the elemental effect. And yes, it is weaksauce.

(N*2)/2 == (N/2)*2 == N



(Ninja post)
Although, if they have ITNW and Immunity (Fire) they'd get the full Force*2. They'd get F*2 in Impact armor and F*2 in "Fire" Armor, both halved.

@Wiseman

Well, there I was only pointing out, that you can not arguee fluff not consistancy in this question.

But yes, of course the interpretation of "AP is not applyed" is questionable, wrote it in the first post, because if you consider AP to be generally applyed there is no need to name it. (In the book it is (as far as I know) always mentioned, but this is no prove.)
It is only not questionable if you go by "the only limitations are those, which are clearly stated".


The net-hit things is harder to get around.

@ Irion
True. A lot of times these discussions only help to cement preconceived personal opinions anyway. But part of why this board is such a great resource is because you people know how to talk out a point. In any case it's given me some things to think about and I'm glad you beat that horse some more (I missed the last times it was discussed apparently)



so doubled and then halved...but I understand your distinction.



Weird that "fire" armor is armor and halved for elemental, but fire retardent is armor modification and not halved. But since armor is always halved that way for elemental, there is still the benefit of Immunity (double the armor than you'd have without immunity), it's just feels like a wasted mental excercise somehow.

Hence why when I would rewrite the rules, Immunity is a new power (creature takes no damage from the source, ever) and Resistance is similar to the current Immunity, although I'd make it a bonus to the damage resistance roll (not effected by AP, nor used in the DV vs. AV calculation).

Does fire immunity also confer resistance to magical fire like the fireball spell, or only mundane fire (flamethrowers, etc). If not, then fire would be pretty much the only elemental immunity worth getting, as there are no mundane weaponized versions of elemental air, water, earth, etc.

Also amused by the idea that you can hose a fire elemental down with flame retardant, which will do no damage to his own flames and instead make the elemental more resistant to fire damage from flamethrowers, etc.

Pretty sure fire is just fire regardless of the source/delivery method.

Yes. It does. The [elemental] spells create an elemental effect, which is obviously resisted with elemental resistance/immunity.

Duh.

I don't find it wierd: one is armor, the other is a modification. Armor suffers armor penetration, modifications do not. I only find it wierd that ItF does not have a caveat where it talks about it giving modification instead of armor.