The issue isn't that Old drones shouldn't be updatable, just that it shouldn't be easy or free. If they're willing to pay, they can obviously do what they want.
Full Version: This Old Drone
… Why can't he buy the Pilot? The issue isn't that Old drones shouldn't be updatable, just that it shouldn't be easy or free. If they're willing to pay, they can obviously do what they want.
The issue isn't that Old drones shouldn't be updatable, just that it shouldn't be easy or free. If they're willing to pay, they can obviously do what they want.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 9 2012, 02:53 PM) 
Erm. No.
What details are missing? What tools you need to add/remove Obsolete? How much time it takes? How much it costs?
That detail isn't missing. That detail isn't there, because there is no such detail.
Obsolete is no vehicle modification, that can be removed (or added, for that matter).
You do not need to know anything else.
The only thing you could call a fault on the writer's part here is that the vehicle traits are also listed under standard upgrades, just like vehicle modifications.
It would have been a bit clearer, if they had added an extra line for vehicle traits.).
What details are missing? What tools you need to add/remove Obsolete? How much time it takes? How much it costs?
That detail isn't missing. That detail isn't there, because there is no such detail.
Obsolete is no vehicle modification, that can be removed (or added, for that matter).
You do not need to know anything else.
The only thing you could call a fault on the writer's part here is that the vehicle traits are also listed under standard upgrades, just like vehicle modifications.
It would have been a bit clearer, if they had added an extra line for vehicle traits.).
They forgot the standard mod entries for Tool Type, Additional Skills, Threshold and Cost.
OR
They didn't clarify how it was SUPPOSED to work.
Either way the unclearness is the writer's responsibility.
Additionally, you don't NEED the cost details like everyone is yamming about - standard mods don't cost anything to remove.
Even the non-listed threshold can be immediately surpassed via edge burning (in extreme cases), because no matter how high it theoretically is, it can still be done in one test.
Either way, you have enough information to follow the rules for removing standard upgrades.
Except for that resulting in a something-for-nothing mess.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 9 2012, 02:45 PM)
None of those quotes provide any rule that says, that you can remove them.
The rules for vehicle modification say, that you can remove them to gain back slots (which does not work with Standard Upgrades) and to slim down its appearance.
There is nothing else.
The rules for vehicle modification say, that you can remove them to gain back slots (which does not work with Standard Upgrades) and to slim down its appearance.
There is nothing else.
You must be hard of sight then, because I've posted it many times now. Here it is for you again.
QUOTE
Standard Upgrades: Removing a standard upgrade does not provide additional modification slots.
This means that yes, you can remove Standard Upgrades.
As for threshold/tests: Success Test Difficulties Table, page 62, SR4A; Task Difficulty Threshold, page 64, SR4A; Extended Test Difficulties, page 64, SR4A. It is only up to the GM to figure out which ones to use.
QUOTE ( @ Apr 9 2012, 02:45 PM)
Your argument fails on so many levels, it just doesn't work.
Bye
Bye
Your refutations are worse, as my arguments are valid and yours seem to lack... substance.
Yes, by RAW, the rules let you remove them. Also by RAW, the rules fail to provide the numbers necessary to actually accomplish this. Without a GM houseruling in appropriate stats to determine the cost and time, you can't do ANYTHING to remove the modifications in question.
When you start houseruling stuff, you're no longer talking about the rules as written.
Either the author intended for them to be removable but forgot to include the appropriate stats, or he did NOT intend them to be removable but failed to specify this.
Or, most likely, he simply didn't consider the possibility.
In all cases, the rules regarding this situation are incomplete.
-k
When you start houseruling stuff, you're no longer talking about the rules as written.
Either the author intended for them to be removable but forgot to include the appropriate stats, or he did NOT intend them to be removable but failed to specify this.
Or, most likely, he simply didn't consider the possibility.
In all cases, the rules regarding this situation are incomplete.
-k
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Apr 10 2012, 02:04 AM)
They forgot the standard mod entries for Tool Type, Additional Skills, Threshold and Cost.
We can rule that part out for sure. Those details were not forgotten. There is no point in providing them.
I guess everyone (even Neraph
) will agree what the intention here is.QUOTE
They didn't clarify how it was SUPPOSED to work.
Yep, that could have been more clear. There is no explanation what a vehicle trait is (though it is obvious enough, really). And mixing those in with the vehicle modifications in the same list is marginally confusing (only if you try hard enough to see it the wrong way, though).
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 10 2012, 06:42 AM)
QUOTE
Standard Upgrades: Removing a standard upgrade does not provide additional modification slots.
This means that yes, you can remove Standard Upgrades.
See, and that is the whole problem here... This is a false conclusion.
It says, that when you remove a standard upgrade you do not get more slots. It does not say that you can remove any standard upgrade.
For example, if only a single standard upgrade is removable, that sentence is logically meaningful already.
Strictly speaking, it is even true, if no standard upgrades can be removed. However, that would be pointless, obviously, so what it does lead us to is that (at least) some standard upgrades can be removed (it still doesn't say so, but it is implied).
It does not automatically lead to the assumption you are making, though, that all standard upgrades can be removed. That part is simply not there.
And then there is the additional fact, that the rules about standard upgrades only ever talk about vehicle modifications and not vehicle traits.
So, if we are going to assume something, which is the only way to come to a conclusion here, since the rules are incomplete, a very likely assumption is, that standard upgrades, that are vehicle modifications, can be removed, but standard upgrades, that are vehicle traits, cannot.
And once more, the very first sentence under Removing a Modification is the only part that gives us any details about what modifications can be removed:
QUOTE
Removing a Modification
A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance.
A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance.
Please note the terminology of "modification" here again (not "trait").
The rules about standard upgrades say, that there is a list of vehicle modifications. The two upgrades in question are no vehicle modifications (as they are nowhere linked to that term). They are listed under vehicle traits (a term, that is not explained in the rules; the only information we gain that way is, that they are not vehicle modifications). By the rules, they do not belong into that list. That is a failure on part of the rules. But that failure does not make them removable, because there are not rules about removing vehicle traits (only vehicle modifications). This is further underlined by the complete lack of detail necessary to apply the rules for vehicle modifications to the two vehicle traits.
QUOTE
As for threshold/tests: Success Test Difficulties Table, page 62, SR4A; Task Difficulty Threshold, page 64, SR4A; Extended Test Difficulties, page 64, SR4A. It is only up to the GM to figure out which ones to use.
Wrong again. It specifically refers to "the usual modification test", which obviously points us to the rules for removing vehicle modifications (Arsenal p. 129 ff.) and the Terminology and necessary details are further specified under Terminology (Arsenal p. 131).
None of those information exist for the two upgrades in question.
That could mean that a GM has to make those up (not very likely), or it could mean that they are not there because there is no need for them (because those upgrades are not meant to be removed).
The latter is far more likely.
So, if we are going to assume something (which we must do here), it is that.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 10 2012, 05:32 AM)
[ Spoiler ]
1) It is not a false conclusion. The rules explicitly state that you can remove Standard Upgrades. I'm tired of quoting the exact same sections of the rules to you, especially when they are presented in the OP that you have apparently failed to read.
2) Please note the absence of any rule determining what a "Vehicle Trait" is, and please note on page 3 of This Old Drone, right after "Vehicle Trait," in parenthesis, the word "Upgrade;" and just above those listings, please note the following text: "The upgrades listed below..."; and also please note that every time Obsolescent/Obsolete are listed they are listed as Standard Upgrades.
And for the arguments against Threshold/Interval: there are charts in SR4A I have listed. Those are RAW.
The only real argument you have here is intent, but that is not what I am pointing out - I am pointing out reality.
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 10 2012, 03:00 PM)
1) It is not a false conclusion. The rules explicitly state that you can remove Standard Upgrades.
Explicitly? Not in any of the quotes you posted here so far.
An explicit quote would look like this: "You can remove any standard upgrade."
QUOTE
I'm tired of quoting the exact same sections of the rules to you, especially when they are presented in the OP that you have apparently failed to read.
Maybe you should start reading that part instead of just copy-pasting it.
It does not say that you can remove a standard upgrade, like you claim.
It says, that when you remove a standard upgrade, you do not gain any extra slots.
That is not the same thing.
The best it does is implying that at least some standard upgrades can be removed (these must be vehicle modifications, though, because only for those we have rules how to handle the removing).
QUOTE
2) Please note the absence of any rule determining what a "Vehicle Trait" is, ...
I know. I pointed that fact out myself.
QUOTE
... and please note on page 3 of This Old Drone, right after "Vehicle Trait," in parenthesis, the word "Upgrade;" and just above those listings, please note the following text: "The upgrades listed below..."; and also please note that every time Obsolescent/Obsolete are listed they are listed as Standard Upgrades.
Yes. Did I disagree with any of those?
What I say is, that they are not "Vehicle Modifications" but "Vehicle Traits" (whatever that is, as there are no rules that specify what a vehicle trait is).
That does not prevent the contradiction I am pointing out from occuring, that only vehicle modifications are supposed to be listed there, yet these two are no vehicle modifications, so they should not be listed there. Yet they are.
RAW fails at this point.
The rest is guesswork and assumptions.
QUOTE
And for the arguments against Threshold/Interval: there are charts in SR4A I have listed. Those are RAW.
Yep. And irrelevant. You don't need thresholds and intervals for something that cannot be done.
QUOTE
The only real argument you have here is intent, but that is not what I am pointing out - I am pointing out reality.
The intent part is why from the two options one is much more likely correct.
Both are possible options (as RAW is not conclusive enough to provide one correct option).
One has a probability of like 0.01% of being correct (that is yours) and the other 99.99%. I like to have good chances, so I bet on #2.
The reality part is, that neither option is complete. So, by RAW, you cannot remove the upgrades. As the rules do not cover that topic.
And that is all I am saying.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 9 2012, 06:14 PM)
… Why can't he buy the Pilot? The issue isn't that Old drones shouldn't be updatable, just that it shouldn't be easy or free. If they're willing to pay, they can obviously do what they want.
The issue isn't that Old drones shouldn't be updatable, just that it shouldn't be easy or free. If they're willing to pay, they can obviously do what they want.Cause who would waste their time mass marketing a pilot program that works in a POS drone that isn't even worth the time and effort to upgrade. As an illegitamate buyer your not even on the radar as a customer, so you could go to the blackmarket, but there wouldn't be one listed. Also after all the updates reconfiguring, wear and tear (do you think after 30+ years of service the drone has 100% factory standard parts in it?) and such any standard pilot program wouldn't be fully compatible anyway.
To me the obsolete trait means that it can't be upgraded for a variety of reasons. One of which can be cost effectiveness.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 10 2012, 10:43 AM)
It does not say that you can remove a standard upgrade, like you claim.
It says, that when you remove a standard upgrade, you do not gain any extra slots.
That is not the same thing.
It says, that when you remove a standard upgrade, you do not gain any extra slots.
That is not the same thing.
That is a SERIOUSLY thin argument, dude.
And I'm on the "not supposed to be removable" side.
-k
That's just silly, Warlordtheft. You're living in a world that sells linux for toasters. Pilots for a known mass-market vehicle will be trivial to find, especially given that all vehicle Pilots are near-identical anyway.
Pilots for a known mass-market vehicle will be trivial to find, especially given that all vehicle Pilots are near-identical anyway.
Too each his own. I don't consider old milspec tech to be mass produced or widely available. It may take 20K to 30K to get the drone to SOTA standards, at which point you have to ask yourself, wouldn't I be better off just getting ARES latest one?
Getting a pilot for a PT Cruiser however probably would be trivial--getting the PT cruiser to use it is the hard and expensive part since it was not designed initially as an rpv.
Getting a pilot for a PT Cruiser however probably would be trivial--getting the PT cruiser to use it is the hard and expensive part since it was not designed initially as an rpv.
QUOTE (Warlordtheft @ Apr 10 2012, 04:01 PM)
Too each his own. I don't consider old milspec tech to be mass produced or widely available. It may take 20K to 30K to get the drone to SOTA standards, at which point you have to ask yourself, wouldn't I be better off just getting ARES latest one?
It seems to me that a Pilot program would be reasonably generic - it knows how to fly. You just need to input the parameters of the vehicle it's been installed in - mass, wingspan, thrust, motive source, etcetera. That itself would be annoying to make from scratch, but someone's probably done it already.
Knowing what I do about flight sims that people train on, small differences in the base model design can completely change the formulas needed to accurately reflect flight characteristics--you'd essentially be starting from scratch. I guess this goes back to how intelligent the pilot is.
Also when in game do you need to purchase a seperate pilot for each drone or drone type if upgrading the pilot programs at CHaracter gen? Not something clearly spelled out. I agree that if you have 4 dobermans and want to upgrade the pilot to 4 you only need to buy the pilot 4 once, but if you have 2 dobermans, and 2 mct flyspy's youd need 2 rating 4 pilots.
Also when in game do you need to purchase a seperate pilot for each drone or drone type if upgrading the pilot programs at CHaracter gen? Not something clearly spelled out. I agree that if you have 4 dobermans and want to upgrade the pilot to 4 you only need to buy the pilot 4 once, but if you have 2 dobermans, and 2 mct flyspy's youd need 2 rating 4 pilots.
QUOTE (Warlordtheft @ Apr 10 2012, 02:41 PM)
Knowing what I do about flight sims that people train on, small differences in the base model design can completely change the formulas needed to accurately reflect flight characteristics--you'd essentially be starting from scratch. I guess this goes back to how intelligent the pilot is.
Also when in game do you need to purchase a seperate pilot for each drone or drone type if upgrading the pilot programs at CHaracter gen? Not something clearly spelled out. I agree that if you have 4 dobermans and want to upgrade the pilot to 4 you only need to buy the pilot 4 once, but if you have 2 dobermans, and 2 mct flyspy's youd need 2 rating 4 pilots.
Also when in game do you need to purchase a seperate pilot for each drone or drone type if upgrading the pilot programs at CHaracter gen? Not something clearly spelled out. I agree that if you have 4 dobermans and want to upgrade the pilot to 4 you only need to buy the pilot 4 once, but if you have 2 dobermans, and 2 mct flyspy's youd need 2 rating 4 pilots.
Correct...
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Apr 10 2012, 06:05 PM)
That is a SERIOUSLY thin argument, dude.
On its own, it sure is.
I'm merely pointing out with it, that there is no explicit rule, that clearly allows to remove anything listed under standard upgrades.
And the difference between vehicle modifications and vehicle traits.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 10 2012, 05:06 PM)
And the difference between vehicle modifications and vehicle traits.
Thanee
Thanee
I'm sick of this arguement.
Quote your pages and sources for these 'vehicle traits'.
because I think you mean VEHICLE TRAIT (UPGRADE)
It literally says its an upgrade in the first line of the box that explains what it is.
This whole argument is pretty silly. I *think* (and correct me if I'm wrong, Neraph) the OP wasn't stating that removing the obsolete/obsolescent should be completely free, it's that it's badly worded/written in the game. I personally don't have a problem with it, as I feel I understand it, but a case has been made.
I think we can all somewhat agree as to what the intent *should* be (or maybe not). And that removing obsolete/obsolescent should either be difficult, impossible, or require some sort of cost.
I think we can all somewhat agree as to what the intent *should* be (or maybe not). And that removing obsolete/obsolescent should either be difficult, impossible, or require some sort of cost.
The Pegasus in this Old Drone, can be upgraded to the Unicorn in Milspec Tech. It show's what kind of work you can do to an old drone.
If I were to address this in one of my games, I think I would go about it this way:
Removing the obsolete or obsolescence trait does not return any slots (just like removing any standard upgrade doesn't return slots), nor does the rating return to "normal", since normal for the obsolete/obsolescent drone is decades behind the curve.
In order to bump the device rating, you would have to upgrade the drone, using up slots to get features that come as standard in modern drones. Like rigger adaptation, improved sensors, better pilot programs, etc. So yeah, you could upgrade an old drone into something approaching a modern one, but the modern one is still better over all (and probably more expensive) because you've had to use upgrade slots just to bring it up to modern specs.
EDIT: I believe, personally, that this was the original "intent" of the authors of This Old Drone.
Removing the obsolete or obsolescence trait does not return any slots (just like removing any standard upgrade doesn't return slots), nor does the rating return to "normal", since normal for the obsolete/obsolescent drone is decades behind the curve.
In order to bump the device rating, you would have to upgrade the drone, using up slots to get features that come as standard in modern drones. Like rigger adaptation, improved sensors, better pilot programs, etc. So yeah, you could upgrade an old drone into something approaching a modern one, but the modern one is still better over all (and probably more expensive) because you've had to use upgrade slots just to bring it up to modern specs.
EDIT: I believe, personally, that this was the original "intent" of the authors of This Old Drone.
QUOTE (Hida Tsuzua @ Apr 9 2012, 09:07 AM)
My problem wasn't that you're proven is that it's theoretically possible to remove Obsolete/Obsolescent and it would be free to do so. It's that the tools needed and threshold are not listed so it's all GM discretion in practice anyways. That's the same net effect if you did make the mods hard traits and asked the GM "hey can I remove this trait?"
Modification: Obsolecent
Tools required: One complete matrix crash.
Time Needed: 10+ years
Modification: Obsolete
Tools required: Invention of quantum computing
Time needed: 50+ years
There ya go.
Uninstall that.
Or you just install the modular electronics mod and put modern guts in the thing at cost.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 10 2012, 08:43 AM)
[ Spoiler ]
Ok, so I read them over again.
QUOTE
This takes the usual modification test and requires the tools mentioned in the modification description. However, the threshold is halved and there are no further materials required.
QUOTE
Standard Upgrades: In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications (p. 131) that the vehicle automatically comes equipped with at no extra cost. These standard upgrades use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications, but they don't count toward the vehicle's slot limit and the vehicle itself still counts as unmodified. Other restrictions, like the maximum amount of weapon mounts, still apply. Removing a standard upgrade does not provide additional modification slots. The changes to a vehicle's stats due to its standard upgrades are already calculated into its stats list.
(emphasis mine)
So between these two quotes we have the following:
1) There are such things as Vehicle Modifications.
2) They can be removed.
3) Some vehicles have Standard Upgrades, which are modifications that don't take up slots.
Ergo: you can remove a Standard Upgrade, as it is a modification, and modifications can be removed. This is basic logic here; A = B = C, or A = C.
I'm curious to see how you can still say you can't remove Standard Upgrades. As for your percentages - I think you got the numbers reversed. You are engaging in a Suppressed Evidence Fallacy by intentionally ignoring the RAW here and continuing to argue using the methods you are.
QUOTE ( @ Apr 10 2012, 08:24 PM)
This whole argument is pretty silly. I *think* (and correct me if I'm wrong, Neraph) the OP wasn't stating that removing the obsolete/obsolescent should be completely free, it's that it's badly worded/written in the game. I personally don't have a problem with it, as I feel I understand it, but a case has been made.
I think we can all somewhat agree as to what the intent *should* be (or maybe not). And that removing obsolete/obsolescent should either be difficult, impossible, or require some sort of cost.
I think we can all somewhat agree as to what the intent *should* be (or maybe not). And that removing obsolete/obsolescent should either be difficult, impossible, or require some sort of cost.
No, I'm saying that by RAW you can simply remove the crappy piece and the drone returns to awsome-ness. I do agree however that the intent is certainly there, and that it's badly written/worded.
QUOTE (pdboddy @ Apr 10 2012, 10:08 PM)
If I were to address this in one of my games, I think I would go about it this way:
Removing the obsolete or obsolescence trait does not return any slots (just like removing any standard upgrade doesn't return slots), nor does the rating return to "normal", since normal for the obsolete/obsolescent drone is decades behind the curve.
In order to bump the device rating, you would have to upgrade the drone, using up slots to get features that come as standard in modern drones. Like rigger adaptation, improved sensors, better pilot programs, etc. So yeah, you could upgrade an old drone into something approaching a modern one, but the modern one is still better over all (and probably more expensive) because you've had to use upgrade slots just to bring it up to modern specs.
EDIT: I believe, personally, that this was the original "intent" of the authors of This Old Drone.
Removing the obsolete or obsolescence trait does not return any slots (just like removing any standard upgrade doesn't return slots), nor does the rating return to "normal", since normal for the obsolete/obsolescent drone is decades behind the curve.
In order to bump the device rating, you would have to upgrade the drone, using up slots to get features that come as standard in modern drones. Like rigger adaptation, improved sensors, better pilot programs, etc. So yeah, you could upgrade an old drone into something approaching a modern one, but the modern one is still better over all (and probably more expensive) because you've had to use upgrade slots just to bring it up to modern specs.
EDIT: I believe, personally, that this was the original "intent" of the authors of This Old Drone.
No sir. The fact that the item is decades behind the curve is the fluff for Obsolescent/Obsolete. In the most RAW terms, the Predator drone (random example) is a DR 5 Milspec drone, and the Obsolete "upgrade" gives it a -3 DR. Removing that Upgrade removes the modifier to its DR, returning it to 5. Whatever reason you want to give it (read: fluff) is why the drone is suffering a DR modification, but the rules only care that there is a modification that inhibits it. Another example would be taking, say, a Ferret, giving it Walker Mode, and Limited Maneuverability. While Limited Maneuverability is there, the drone cannot move. You would need to remove that modification in order to allow Walker Mode to modify its listed movement rates. If you were to remove Walker Mode beforehand, the drone would still be incapable of movement because Limited Maneuverability is there.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Apr 11 2012, 02:54 AM)
Quote your pages and sources for these 'vehicle traits'.
Oh, that's very simple. I can't. There are no rules for them. That's the problem at hand. That is why you cannot remove them.
Because there are no rules that tell you that you can or how you do it!
Yet, they clearly are listed as vehicle traits.
QUOTE
because I think you mean VEHICLE TRAIT (UPGRADE)
It literally says its an upgrade in the first line of the box that explains what it is.
It literally says its an upgrade in the first line of the box that explains what it is.
Of course it is an upgrade. It is not some kind of stand-alone item. It only works in conjunction with a vehicle or drone. You 'upgrade' (actually more of a downgrade in this case, though) some vehicle or drone with this trait in order to simulate an older tech standard. Making a completely new (well, old) vehicle or drone from it in that process.
You cannot upgrade some vehicle or drone with it in the way, that you install that upgrade into an existing (in the game) one (or remove it from one that already has it for that matter). Hence no details to do so, because there is no need for them.
You use those upgrades only on the drawing board, not in the game.
The difference is not, that it is not an upgrade.
The difference is, that it is a trait and not a modification.
It doesn't use the rules for modifications. And there are no rules for traits.
Some rules about traits would still be nice, though.
The words (trait vs. modification) alone say all there is to know, really.
A trait is something inherent, while a modification is something integrated.
But as I said, a short paragraph about vehicle traits would be nice for clarification.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 11 2012, 07:29 AM)
So between these two quotes we have the following:
1) There are such things as Vehicle Modifications.
2) They can be removed.
3) Some vehicles have Standard Upgrades, which are modifications that don't take up slots.
1) There are such things as Vehicle Modifications.
2) They can be removed.
3) Some vehicles have Standard Upgrades, which are modifications that don't take up slots.
1) Yes.
2) Yes, if they are vehicle modifications and you remove them in order to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item's appearance.
Here's the part before your first quote, that you left out: "A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance. This takes ..."
3) Yes and No.
Some vehicles have standard upgrades. Check.
But being on the list for standard upgrades does not make an item a vehicle modification.
The standard upgrade part lists vehicle modifications.
In order to end up on that list an item has to be a vehicle modification already (i.e. it is a vehicle modification already before it comes on that list).
Otherwise it is not a list of vehicle modifications, that you find there.
QUOTE
In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications (p. 131) that the vehicle automatically comes equipped with at no extra cost. These standard upgrades use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications
In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications. The entry lists vehicle modifications.
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
They should not be on that list.
Yet they are.
Contradiction!
QUOTE
In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications (p. 131) that the vehicle automatically comes equipped with at no extra cost. These standard upgrades use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications
These standard upgrades use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications. These standard upgrades on the list of vehicle modifications (that are vehicle modifications).
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
They should not be on that list.
Yet they are.
Contradiction!
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 03:45 AM)
The entry lists vehicle modifications.
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
They should not be on that list.
Yet they are.
Thanee
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
They should not be on that list.
Yet they are.
Thanee
You have a logic fail here.
Its kind of impossible for a 'list' to exist across all books and products released across a 5 year span. Thats a semantic arguement, not a factual one.
He's quoting across multiple books. Passages contain text from Arsenal and This Old Drone.
Yes of course its not in the arsenal list, it was released years later, thats the point of an expansion book.
Also I already quoted this and you're ignoring it, but: the vehicle trait rules very clearly label it as an upgrade, and then go on to clarifiy that it is a standard upgrade.
As neraph has quoted to you.
Repeatedly
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 03:33 AM)
Oh, that's very simple. I can't. There are no rules for them. That's the problem at hand. That is why you cannot remove them.
Because there are no rules that tell you that you can or how you do it!
Of course it is an upgrade.
Thanee
Because there are no rules that tell you that you can or how you do it!
Of course it is an upgrade.
Thanee
1) There ARE rules, and you are willfully ignoring them
2) See 1, but look in Arsenal
3) You agreed with me! Stop ignoring rules you don't like. Just because you say they aren't true doesn't make it so.
What you actually mean to say is 'there aren't any rules to support what my arguement'
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 03:45 AM)
In order to end up on that list an item has to be a vehicle modification already (i.e. it is a vehicle modification already before it comes on that list).
Also bullshit arguement, as newer books have introduced mods that use the existing rules.
(i am talking about, oh, spygames and milspectech)
Your arguement's gotta hold water in all situations, dude.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 04:33 AM)
Oh, that's very simple. I can't. There are no rules for them. That's the problem at hand. That is why you cannot remove them.
Because there are no rules that tell you that you can or how you do it!
Because there are no rules that tell you that you can or how you do it!
Since there are no rules for something called a "vehicle trait" than it is a meaningless term and should be ignored.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 04:45 AM)
1) Yes.
2) Yes, if they are vehicle modifications and you remove them in order to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item's appearance.
Here's the part before your first quote, that you left out: "A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance. This takes ..."
2) Yes, if they are vehicle modifications and you remove them in order to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item's appearance.
Here's the part before your first quote, that you left out: "A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance. This takes ..."
No, you're adding onto the explicit RAW. "Modifications can be removed. This gives you back slots the modification took up. Standard Upgrades are modifications that don't take up Mod slots. Removing a Standard Upgrade does not give you slots." <-- The sentences in quotes are all what the rules say, and I've quoted them extensively now.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 04:45 AM)
3) Yes and No.
Actually, just Yes.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 04:45 AM)
Some vehicles have standard upgrades. Check.
But being on the list for standard upgrades does not make an item a vehicle modification.
The standard upgrade part lists vehicle modifications.
In order to end up on that list an item has to be a vehicle modification already (i.e. it is a vehicle modification already before it comes on that list).
Otherwise it is not a list of vehicle modifications, that you find there.
In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications. The entry lists vehicle modifications.
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
Contradiction!
But being on the list for standard upgrades does not make an item a vehicle modification.
The standard upgrade part lists vehicle modifications.
In order to end up on that list an item has to be a vehicle modification already (i.e. it is a vehicle modification already before it comes on that list).
Otherwise it is not a list of vehicle modifications, that you find there.
In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications. The entry lists vehicle modifications.
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
Contradiction!
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 04:45 AM)
These standard upgrades use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications. But these standard upgrades on the list of vehicle modifications that are vehicle modifications.
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
They should not be on that list.
Yet they are.
Contradiction!
Bye
Thanee
Obsolete/Obsolecent are not vehicle modifications.
Being on that list does not make them vehicle modifications.
They should not be on that list.
Yet they are.
Contradiction!
Bye
Thanee
You contradict yourself, using your own logic. Using my logic, there is no contradiction, as Obsolescent/Obsolete actually are Upgrades (as the text clearly defines them as such) and is confirmed by them being listed in the Standard Upgrades section. You let yourself get confused by a meaningless two words and ignore the multiple other words that actually reference and create RAW stating my argument is correct. Your problem is that you can not seem to separate RAI from RAW.
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 11 2012, 03:26 PM)
No, you're adding onto the explicit RAW. "Modifications can be removed. This gives you back slots the modification took up. Standard Upgrades are modifications that don't take up Mod slots. Removing a Standard Upgrade does not give you slots." <-- The sentences in quotes are all what the rules say, and I've quoted them extensively now.
Aha, now I understand where you are coming from.
By changing the wording you make RAW even more RAWish.
To the rest I can only say: Just because there are no rules specific to vehicle traits, doesn't make that term meaningless at all. And it doesn't make it something else either.
It just means exactly what it is. There are no rules specific to vehicle traits.
The rest is just assumptions and has nothing to do with RAW.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE
THE MODIFICATION TEST
All modification tests are Extended Tests based on the Logic attribute + the relevant skill. The relevant skill for firearms and weapon modifications is Armorer, while for vehicles it depends on the vehicle type (Aeronautics Mechanic, Automotive Mechanic, or Nautical Mechanic). The threshold for the modification is listed in the modification description, or determined by the gamemaster
All modification tests are Extended Tests based on the Logic attribute + the relevant skill. The relevant skill for firearms and weapon modifications is Armorer, while for vehicles it depends on the vehicle type (Aeronautics Mechanic, Automotive Mechanic, or Nautical Mechanic). The threshold for the modification is listed in the modification description, or determined by the gamemaster
What is the threshold for adding obsolete/obsolescent? Because if it's not listed, the gamemaster has free reign to say anything, and you're in the realm of houserules on removing the 'upgrade'.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Apr 11 2012, 03:13 PM)
You have a logic fail here.
Its kind of impossible for a 'list' to exist across all books and products released across a 5 year span. Thats a semantic arguement, not a factual one.
He's quoting across multiple books. Passages contain text from Arsenal and This Old Drone.
Yes of course its not in the arsenal list, it was released years later, thats the point of an expansion book.
Its kind of impossible for a 'list' to exist across all books and products released across a 5 year span. Thats a semantic arguement, not a factual one.
He's quoting across multiple books. Passages contain text from Arsenal and This Old Drone.
Yes of course its not in the arsenal list, it was released years later, thats the point of an expansion book.
Where exactly did I say it has to be in the Arsenal list?
I say it has to be a vehicle modification in order to be able to apply those rules to them. It has to use the same terminology as defined in Arsenal (p. 131).
QUOTE
Also I already quoted this and you're ignoring it, but: the vehicle trait rules very clearly label it as an upgrade, and then go on to clarifiy that it is a standard upgrade.
Uhm... I'm ignoring it by directly answering to it? Now that's some interesting observation. (Post #74 BTW.)
Besides, it is labeled an upgrade, but there is no such clarification you speak of. Where did you find that?
QUOTE
1) There ARE rules, and you are willfully ignoring them
I'm ignoring nothing, I just don't apply rules for vehicle modifications to vehicle traits.
I am not waving away the term "Vehicle Trait" here, that is what you guys are doing.
I quote Neraph here:
"Since there are no rules for something called a "vehicle trait" than it is a meaningless term and should be ignored."
See?
QUOTE
3) You agreed with me! Stop ignoring rules you don't like. Just because you say they aren't true doesn't make it so.
What you actually mean to say is 'there aren't any rules to support what my arguement'
What you actually mean to say is 'there aren't any rules to support what my arguement'
You got it all wrong. And please read the complete part, not just the first six words.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Apr 11 2012, 03:16 PM)
Also bullshit arguement, as newer books have introduced mods that use the existing rules.
(i am talking about, oh, spygames and milspectech)
(i am talking about, oh, spygames and milspectech)
That's cool. Are any of those also labeled differently to set them apart? Like, say, "Vehicle Trait"? Do they also have no information on thresholds, tools, etc?
Again, there is absolutely no problem applying those rules about vehicle modifications from Arsenal to vehicle modifications from newer books.
QUOTE
Your arguement's gotta hold water in all situations, dude.
Oh, it perfectly does so. I'm rather sure you cannot tell me a single situation, where it does not work.
In addition, if I may say so, it does not create any completely ridiculous scenarios.
OTOH, you cannot give me (RAW-)answers to very simple questions about removing Obsolete from a drone, like how long does it take? Or, what tools do I need for that task?
Yet, the rules (you know, that RAW stuff) require it.
QUOTE
The materials necessary to do the job are represented by the cost and availability values of the modification, as outlined in the modification description.
So your claim is, that the removal is possible, despite the complete lack of necessary information about it, even though the rules clearly point out, that this information is to be used.
That does not make it possible by RAW, it puts it entirely into the hands of the GM to decide. That is what you consider RAW? Something that the GM has to make up?
That's like saying that by RAW, I can play a dinosaur. The GM just has to make up the rules for it!
Bye
Thanee
Thanee: You are claiming that standard upgrades listed in the standard upgrades section of vehicle statblock text aren't actually standard upgrades.
Therefore, by your reasoning, tanks don't have treads or guns.
Either they are all mods or they all aren't; You can't have it both ways.
Therefore, by your reasoning, tanks don't have treads or guns.
QUOTE (this old drone page 9, MIG Skate)
Std. Upgrades: Obsolete, Signature Masking, Rtg. 1,
Weapon Mount (internal, remote-controlled, fixed)
Weapon Mount (internal, remote-controlled, fixed)
QUOTE (arsenal 116,DocWagon CRT Helicopter (Medical Helicopter) )
Std. Upgrades: Obsolete, Signature Masking, Rtg. 1,
Weapon Mount (internal, remote-controlled, fixed)
Weapon Mount (internal, remote-controlled, fixed)
Either they are all mods or they all aren't; You can't have it both ways.
I think the whole discussion on whether or not they count as 'upgrades' is completely moot.
There simply isn't the relevant data in the books to complete the removal process.
A GM can make something up, but at that point you are into houserule territory and not discussing RAW anymore.
My firm belief is that the authors simply did not consider the possibility. This is not unusual, but of course is supposed to be caught in the editing and play-test process. It is a key reason you never have the author as the only one testing or editing his own work - they know what they MEANT to say, so if they didn't actually write it in a way that others can understand that too, they may not realize it.
-k
There simply isn't the relevant data in the books to complete the removal process.
A GM can make something up, but at that point you are into houserule territory and not discussing RAW anymore.
My firm belief is that the authors simply did not consider the possibility. This is not unusual, but of course is supposed to be caught in the editing and play-test process. It is a key reason you never have the author as the only one testing or editing his own work - they know what they MEANT to say, so if they didn't actually write it in a way that others can understand that too, they may not realize it.
-k
QUOTE (Halinn @ Apr 11 2012, 06:58 AM)
What is the threshold for adding obsolete/obsolescent? Because if it's not listed, the gamemaster has free reign to say anything, and you're in the realm of houserules on removing the 'upgrade'.
Whatever the threshold is for making a vehicle obsolete, the interval is measured in decades.
Nah, just have the interval be months with a really high threshold. Sometimes things get obsolete only a short while after they're new, which would just be a really "lucky" roll.
QUOTE (Halinn @ Apr 11 2012, 08:58 AM)
What is the threshold for adding obsolete/obsolescent? Because if it's not listed, the gamemaster has free reign to say anything, and you're in the realm of houserules on removing the 'upgrade'.
Correct, but the ability to remove it is RAW.
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 11 2012, 09:00 AM)
I'm ignoring nothing, I just don't apply rules for vehicle modifications to vehicle traits.
I am not waving away the term "Vehicle Trait" here, that is what you guys are doing.
I quote Neraph here:
"Since there are no rules for something called a "vehicle trait" than it is a meaningless term and should be ignored."
See?
I am not waving away the term "Vehicle Trait" here, that is what you guys are doing.
I quote Neraph here:
"Since there are no rules for something called a "vehicle trait" than it is a meaningless term and should be ignored."
See?
I am amazed that you take a meaningless phrase and allow it to completely confound your ability to grasp rules. You remind me of something...
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 11 2012, 01:26 PM)
<Snip.>
You contradict yourself, using your own logic. Using my logic, there is no contradiction, as Obsolescent/Obsolete actually are Upgrades (as the text clearly defines them as such) and is confirmed by them being listed in the Standard Upgrades section. You let yourself get confused by a meaningless two words and ignore the multiple other words that actually reference and create RAW stating my argument is correct. Your problem is that you can not seem to separate RAI from RAW.
You contradict yourself, using your own logic. Using my logic, there is no contradiction, as Obsolescent/Obsolete actually are Upgrades (as the text clearly defines them as such) and is confirmed by them being listed in the Standard Upgrades section. You let yourself get confused by a meaningless two words and ignore the multiple other words that actually reference and create RAW stating my argument is correct. Your problem is that you can not seem to separate RAI from RAW.
"I got me some cash to upgrade my drones. Now what am I gonna do this week? Sensors? Done them already. Directional antenna? Too Spy Games for me. I know, I'll do the Obsolete Upgrade, give my drones that retro '50's feel!" ...
QUOTE (Midas @ Apr 11 2012, 11:45 PM)
"I got me some cash to upgrade my drones. Now what am I gonna do this week? Sensors? Done them already. Directional antenna? Too Spy Games for me. I know, I'll do the Obsolete Upgrade, give my drones that retro '50's feel!" ...
Makes them harder to hack.
QUOTE (Midas @ Apr 12 2012, 01:45 AM)
"I got me some cash to upgrade my drones. Now what am I gonna do this week? Sensors? Done them already. Directional antenna? Too Spy Games for me. I know, I'll do the Obsolete Upgrade, give my drones that retro '50's feel!" ...
Hey, Arsenal says that some mechanics uninstall wireless controls and revert vehicles back to Fly by Wire, as in the good old days.
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Apr 11 2012, 11:32 PM)
My firm belief is that the authors simply did not consider the possibility.
Yeah, I don't think they have thought about someone trying to do that (because it is obviously silly), just because they took the convenience route and also list them under standard upgrades instead of making up a complete new entry in the vehicle/drone stats listup (which they should have done).
I am really, really sure that they did not even not consider the possibility, but that they deliberately invented the term "vehicle trait" to set them apart from typical vehicle modifications. As I said somewhere above, "trait" means something is inherent to something, while "modification" means something has been integrated into something.
And they didn't provide any data to install/remove them, because they are not meant to be installed/removed from anything. Hence, no data needed.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Apr 11 2012, 11:21 PM)
Thanee: You are claiming that standard upgrades listed in the standard upgrades section of vehicle statblock text aren't actually standard upgrades.
You obviously don't understand, what I am saying.
I am saying, that there is a contradiction in the rules.
One rule implies to us that A = 1.
Another rule tells us that A = 2.
An impossibility. A contradiction.
Without making assumptions or house rules you cannot proceed there.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 12 2012, 06:33 AM)
I am amazed that you take a meaningless phrase and allow it to completely confound your ability to grasp rules. You remind me of something...
Neraph, if you are unable to argue on a sensible level, then just refrain from doing so.
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (Thanee @ Apr 12 2012, 09:51 AM)
I am really, really sure that they did not even not consider the possibility, but that they deliberately invented the term "vehicle trait" to set them apart from typical vehicle modifications. As I said somewhere above, "trait" means something is inherent to something, while "modification" means something has been integrated into something.
I'd like to quote something to you, Thanee. Stick with me, it's a somewhat obscure piece of jurisprudence. Ready?
QUOTE (The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America @ Dec 15 1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems pretty heavy, doesn't it? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is rather clear-cut and dried. It directs that the Government of the United States of America shall not infringe upon the right of the people of said country to keep and bear armaments.
But what about the first part, though? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means significantly less. It states something, but it does not direct that such Militias shall be raised and well-regulated. It does not define such a Militia, for that matter. It is, but it is without context, moot. A justification, perhaps, for what comes next, but it is not by itself, in and of itself, of any value or meaning whatsoever; it defines nothing, it makes no directions.
They may have invented the term "vehicle trait," but without definition, without direction, without explicitly, in black and white text, pointing out what differentiates a "vehicle trait", as an upgrade, from a "normal upgrade," it is a meaningless piece of metadata, utterly bereft of direction or distinction, and, from a strictly logical, parse-the-rulesbook, rules-as-written sense, completely inadmissible and useless as a basis on which to argue that Obsolescent and Obsolete are not normal upgrades which can be removed from a vehicle, modifying (or rather, unmodifying,) the vehicle's statistics as directed in their text.
Neraph is arguing quite sensibly. You refuse to listen to his (her) arguments because you've gotten fixated upon and locked-up on a meaningless turn of phrase.
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Apr 7 2012, 11:03 AM)
If you want to be funny about it, this is exactly the case. The drones are suffering from a bad case of Planned Obsolescence which means that the manufacturer installed an atomic-decay clock device which steadily degrades the drone's systems as time marches on, to force you to buy a new one. Restoring the drone is as simple as popping the hood, taking this device and heaving it into the sound.
Better yet, sell it to your enemy through an intermediary as something else and hope he installs it into his Hughes Stallion or other modern vehicle/drone.
QUOTE (cryptoknight @ Apr 12 2012, 04:14 PM)
Better yet, sell it to your enemy through an intermediary as something else and hope he installs it into his Hughes Stallion or other modern vehicle/drone.
Good point. You can have a lot of fun with a device which intentionally buggers the device ratings of any drone it's installed on with a pineapple.
All other considerations aside, it's a little much to argue that 'well-regulated militia' is (as we say) 'ignorable fluff'. I know, of course, that many crazy people *do* argue that.
I know, of course, that many crazy people *do* argue that.
It means nothing, Yerameyahu. It makes no directions or provisions. It is ignorable fluff, because it is nothing more than flowery prose which explains the reasoning behind that amendment.
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Apr 12 2012, 03:50 PM)
It means nothing, Yerameyahu. It makes no directions or provisions. It is ignorable fluff, because it is nothing more than flowery prose which explains the reasoning behind that amendment.
Which is certainly an opinion I have heard over the years.
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Apr 12 2012, 10:00 PM)
They may have invented the term "vehicle trait," but without definition, without direction, without explicitly, in black and white text, pointing out what differentiates a "vehicle trait", as an upgrade, from a "normal upgrade," it is a meaningless piece of metadata, utterly bereft of direction or distinction, and, from a strictly logical, parse-the-rulesbook, rules-as-written sense, completely inadmissible and useless as a basis on which to argue that Obsolescent and Obsolete are not normal upgrades which can be removed from a vehicle, modifying (or rather, unmodifying,) the vehicle's statistics as directed in their text.
You are confusing the terms (just like the other guys). "Upgrades" cannot be removed. "Vehicle Modifications" can. "Upgrades" that are "Vehicle Modifications" can. But not because they are "Upgrades", but rather because they are "Vehicle Modifications".
This here is the only rule in all of the books that actually allows the removal of them.
QUOTE
Removing a Modification
A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance. This takes the usual modification test and requires the tools mentioned in the modification description. However, the threshold is halved and there are no further materials required.
A modification can be removed to get back the slots it took up and slim down the item’s appearance. This takes the usual modification test and requires the tools mentioned in the modification description. However, the threshold is halved and there are no further materials required.
A modification can be removed (neither a trait, nor an upgrade; almost all upgrades are modifications, though, which makes them removable in turn).
(And only for one specific purpose, BTW, you cannot just remove it, because you feel like it. By RAW, that is.)
And this part here does not change anything about it.
QUOTE
Standard Upgrades: In this entry you will find a list of vehicle modifications (p. 131) that the vehicle automatically comes equipped with at no extra cost. These standard upgrades use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications, but they don’t count toward the vehicle’s slot limit and the vehicle itself still counts as unmodified. Other restrictions, like the maximum amount of weapon mounts, still apply. Removing a standard upgrade does not provide additional modification slots. The changes to a vehicle’s stats due to its standard upgrades are already calculated into its stats list.
These standard upgrades (that are a list of vehicle modifications that the vehicle automatically comes equipped with at no extra cost) use the same rules as given for vehicle modifications.
Standard upgrades, that are not vehicle modifications, do not. Like vehicle traits. They are still upgrades, though.
And removing a standard upgrade does not provide additional modification slots. That doesn't make standard upgrades removable on principle. It only tells us, that if we remove a (removable) standard upgrade (like a vehicle modification, as those can be removed), we do not get any extra slots.
In this whole context, "Vehicle Trait" is not meaningless at all. You don't even need any rules about what they are.
Even without any rules about what a "Vehicle Trait" is or does, it is still a label (or a keyword). You cannot just wave it away and ignore it.
Obsolete is a vehicle trait. Obsolete is not a vehicle modification. That is what the rules say. That is what is written there (or not, in case of the modification).
This is further underlined by the complete lack of any details that are necessary for the removal of modifications and defined in the terminology section of vehicle modifications.
QUOTE
This takes the usual modification test and requires the tools mentioned in the modification description.
This requires the tools mentioned in the modification description. Without that description, you have no tools. Without those tools, removal is not possible. As they are required. RAW.
Sure, a GM can make those up. A GM can make anything up, that isn't written there and therefore allow their removal. But that is not written anywhere. It is made up. A construct of your imagination. Not RAW.
Besides, many equipment entries just have a headline, without any text explaining what that term is or providing any special rules. That still makes them whatever the headline says they are.
For example, do you want to argue that a flashlight, or gas mask, or hazmat suit is not survival gear?
Bye
Thanee
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Apr 12 2012, 04:50 PM)
It means nothing, Yerameyahu. It makes no directions or provisions. It is ignorable fluff, because it is nothing more than flowery prose which explains the reasoning behind that amendment.
Yes. Like I said, some insane people believe that, or pretend to to further gun nut agendas. This issue continues to this day: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...?pagewanted=all
But politics is not the point. The point is that unilaterally declaring things 'mere fluff' is a major problem for something like SR4. Fluff and crunch are not marked, so that decision itself is often changing the rules. Even when it is not, people frequently use it to hurt the game, instead of just admitting that the rules are in error. It *is* amusing when Neraph points out these poorly-written rules, but no one seriously thinks (well, no one serious, anyway) that the broken RAW is what you should play by.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.