Though I laugh at the ridiculous idea of claiming to have any professional authority on the internet, I agree: the whole point is that either phrasing *can* mean either thing. There is no basis for saying that 'when fired' cannot mean 'on the first shot'. So, you misunderstood. I'm saying both are fully ambiguous, and that almost normal's "reading strictly" pronouncement is handwaving (i.e., BS). He's the one claiming some linguistically evident distinction.

The whole question is, of course, irrelevant. I only care whether or not the -2 *should* apply, not what the writer tried/failed to write.

Daww, I like you more too Ty <3





First, I find it awesome that you allege my meaningless posts are pronouncements. Perhaps next time you could allege I pontificate, that'd help me complete the set.

The only thing I claimed was the rule itself was ambiguous, since it seems to imply one thing, and a textual reading infers another. Seems like folks agree with me, and what is more, some folks seem to think that you're being dismissive of outside ideas while stubbornly submitting your own interpretation as the only possible one. As I am currently drinking, I find the irony hilarious.

A pronouncement is a statement, and you made a statement. If 'alleging' that is a problem, there's no help for it. Regardless, what you said was wrong: 'when fired' can mean *either* 'affects the first' or 'affects subsequent', and so can 'when firing'. It is false that 'when fired' and 'when firing' necessarily mean different things, or are 'clearly' *anything*.

Apart from calling people on their baseless 'linguistic' claims, I'm not sure what idea I'm supposed to be dismissing (nor what 'my interpretation' supposedly is). I have no opinion on the actual rule, and don't use WAR anyway. I just don't like people blaming things on linguistics, or falsely claiming authority on the matter. Perhaps I'm being confused with TJ?

No it isn't. I figure we're speaking english. I haven't had *that* much to drink, so I'm pretty sure on that one. Means I can use a handy dictionary.

Here goes!



PATCHOOOO. -the suffix -ed is used to denote something that HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST.



PATCHOOO. Is the bullet currently in the action of fire? That would be firING. Has the bullet been already activated? That would be firED.

That does it as well as it can be done. You are wrong. You can continue going on wronging, or we can just say that you had wronged in the past. It's up to you.

These quotes are true, but not at all relevant. It is fully possible to interpret both 'when fired/firing' as affecting the first bullet, or not. Neither is 'clearly' either one (only). All that matters is *deciding* whether we want the game to work one way, or the other; the writers failed to provide the answer to us.

[citation needed]

That would be a first, wouldn't it.

Strangely, this gives me hope.

Heh, TJ, well you're the one who took a position on the issue, against him. Nothing wrong with it, of course.

Please of course you can have high powered lasers they just need to buy better power cells that burn out after firing.....

My lord... Who teaches you kids grammar anymore?! Maybe I'm being too hard especially with the number of people on these forums with English as a second language.


BBB "Note that single-shot weapons may be fired only once per Action Phase"
BBB: "Burst-fire weapons receive a -2 recoil modifier for the first burst FIRED in that Action Phase"...
BBB: "Any shotgun fired..."
BBB: "... second shot, if fired in that same..."

Well I guess since fired is used in all cases. The -2 for recoil doesn't apply to the first burst! Nor for any other recoil modifier! That is your "logic" exactly! Even when using burst fire rules which everyone agrees give a -2/-5 total on first/second burst.

Did it strike you that both tenses of the when clause are valid depending on whether the verb is considered continuous or not? (some can be considered both continuous or normal depending on what they're acting on).

So... I gave a couple logical examples from the top of my head of how "when fired" is a non-specific phrase that can refer to various situations that differ in large part based on context, and everyone else ignored that entirely and latched onto an argument about past tense versus present tense?



~Umi

What were you hoping for? Of course it's ambiguous. That's just obvious, and doesn't bear commenting on. What did bear commenting on was someone denying the fact. If someone says the sky's blue, we're not going to post about it.

(Around here, of course, 'the sky is blue' is equivalent to 'SR writers were unclear/bad'.)

@almost normal:
Hey, I'm used to hearing that kind of proclamation drunk; but then it's not your fault I decided to go online sober. Bad Ears, bad Ears! Drink before reading, drink even more before posting!!

@ZeroPoint:
I had noticed the same thing (the discussion going nowhere), which is why I decided to chime in, 'cause I saw the same stalemate. And honestly never saw the original problem, 'cause really ambigious rules? Stop the presses! NOT

@_Pax_:
If I were a player in your group, with those house rules, I'd get a Ruger Super Warhawk for anti-spirit duty, modified to SA, with Smartlink, Personalised Grip and High Power Chambering and loading APDS. You Ok with 8p @ -7 AP, knowing I'd never have to deal with recoil? Just asking.

Technically, "when fired" could mean ANYTIME after the firing event, which can interpreted as that penalty being stacked on every round fired after that. Even if it had been unloaded, cleaned, stored away for 30 years, and then brought out for use again.

English is kinda imprecise if you're not careful, huh?


-k

Sure.

On the one hand, your bullets are now costing 280 per 10, with an availability of 24F. Sure, they do DV +2 and AP -6. Stacked on the Warhawk's base 6P/-1, that's pretty good, I agree.

On the other hand, Anti-Tank rounds, for 220 per 10, with an availability of 22F, do DV +0 and AP-6. Almost as good, slightly cheaper, slightly easier to get ahold of.

And don't forget, your Warhawk can't fire "normal power" rounds. Even bog-standard Regular ammo winds up costing 80 for a box fo 10, and has an availability of 10R - so finding it on short notice is nontrivial.

...

So, yeah, I'm okay with that. Every double-tap is 56 out of your pocket, and possibly a nightmare tracking down ammunition to even buy in the first place.

One takes a day break from internet and misses 2 pages of posts... damn. Anyway I am with TJ on this, since he managed to make the same arguments I would made

Indeed... It was just an amusing comment, is all. No worries.

Perfect Anti-Spirit Weapon Build. Even a 8p -3 AP, it is a deal.
I have 2 characters with that setup (Minus the APDS)...

The change I implemented was essentially the same as Pax's though I lowered it to +1.

Another option I considered was just treating it as though the weapon is chambered to use rounds from the next step up in firearm using that damage code.
I would also consider reducing ammo capacities by some amount since the higher power rounds will be larger, taking more space in a magazine.
Maybe make it dependent on loading type:
Breach or muzzle loaded: unaffected
Cylinder: -20% (minimum -1 rnd)
magazine (either internal or box[aka clip] or drum: -35%
belt: unaffected
feals like i'm missing something there...

holdout/light pistol/machine pistol >>> Heavy Pistol/SMG >>> Assault rifle/LMG >>> Sport rifle >>> Sniper Rifle >>> Anti-material Rifle

So a 15 shot Light pistol chambered for heavy pistol rounds would deal 5P -1AP, but would have a reduced "clip" capacity at 9 rnds, double uncompensated recoil, would use light pistol ranges, and light pistol concealability. Rounds you would purchase for it would be the same as you would buy for your Predator or any other heavy pistol.

And with those rules you could assume that weapons like the super warhawk or the barret and some of the other weapons that do more damage for their class already come stock with this mod and thus can not have it applied again.

Using this option causes the weapon to be treated as the new chambering for local laws and regulations as to what weapons are allowed. so a Heavy pistol with High power chambering would face the same rules and regulations that would apply to Assault rifles.

Yeah I like these, but added the qualifier for some types of ammo (in bold).

Why would you make a high power gel round?

"We want to REALLY not kill you. Hard."

Don't forget capsule.

yeah, because that wouldn't be guarenteed to send them into physical damage overflow...

Hell, I cannot tell you how many victims (as in dead) fell, quite unintentionally, to the light pistol with narcojet Capsules.

An Adept Shooter Guy Huh?

Cyber-Logician Communications Specialist actually. 14 Dice in Pistols. For some odd reason, whenever I tried not killing someone (because, you know, we wanted to question them, or becuase it was not worth killing them, etc.), I would net between 8 and 11 Hits on the attack. Not sure why. If I was using APDS or EX-EX Rounds, I tended to net between 1 and 4 hits. It was very strange. I still get comments about it, even though I am no longer playing that particular character.

SR3 rules? O.o
By them it would have been pretty much impossible to outright kill somebody with one shot, especially using gel ammo . .

Good point, and so modified. Zeropoint's take on things is also interesting (and would allow literally ANY ammunition type). The only hole with that approach is, what to do with high-powered Sport/Antimateriel rifles ...

Also, do note: my setup allows for high-powered LMGs, MMGs, and HMGs. Oh, and for high-powered Assault Cannons. >:D Just, um ... bring the recoil compensation, eh?

SR4...

Right, so ... second draft:


High Powered ammunition is not a separate type unto itself; many kinds of ammunition are available in high powered ("HP") variants. (Disallowed HP ammunition includes Stick-and-shock, Capsule, Gel, and Subsonic.)

Firearms must be modified to fire such rounds, and once modified can fire _only_ HP ammunition. Any firearm, including assault cannons, can be modified in this way. Modifying a weapon to fire High Powered ammunition costs 2 slots, has a threshold of 20, requires an armorer's shop, and costs as much as the original weapon (with an availability of 7R). This modification is incompatible with Extended Magazine and Increased Cylinder.

HP ammunition gains +1 damage and -1 armor piercing, in addition to the base values for that type of round. Price is multiplied by four, and availability increases by +8. When fired, all recoil is doubled before compensation. Additionally, HP ammunition is especially loud and has a large muzzle flash. Attempts to detect or pinpoint the firing of HP ammunition gain +3 dice for hearing tests, or +1 die for visual tests (these modifiers are cumulative with silencers / suppressors).

If you wanted to take the progression further on up I guess you could go Antimaterial weapon >>> Assault Canon >>> Vehicle mounted Canon ...

also because i forgot to include them

Assault rifle/LMG >>> Sport rifle/battle rifle/MMG >>> sniper rifle/HMG >>> Antimaterial


Anyway, best i can do right now not being in front of my books.

Thanks for all the input and advice.

But in true Dumpshock fashion, this topic has gotten so far off the topic that I am no longer going to read it.

Well... Bye.

No offense intended.... it has just migrated away from the subject that I was looking for.

Hmm, really? Considering that this is dumpshock, I find the discussion surprisingly on-topic for being on page 5...