How is that different from what he said. A critical glitch, by definition, requires no hits. A test with no hits will be a failed test. Thus a critical glitch will always be a failed test.

Likewise, a critical success typically requires 4 successes beyond what is required for the test so a critical success can only occur on a successful test.

--



Not really. Missions requires a uniform interpretation of the rules. Anything that is vague needs to have an interpretation in order to be properly taken care of by GMs for Missions. This has no bearing on whether the interpretation is right or wrong, it's just a matter of necessity that a uniform interpretation be used which necessitates a single arbiter.

That is true but a test with hits can still be a failed test, if the threshold is higher than the number of hits. If there is a single hit the test can never be a critical glitch, no matter whether the test is failed or not. So failure is necessary but not sufficient. What makes the glitch critical is the absence of hits.

This is also true, but a critical success can still be a glitch.

And that's why a glitch shouldn't rule out the reroll-failed-dice option. There should always be the possibility of generating additional hits.

If that would be true, there would be no point in rolling in the first place, since you auto-succeed at every task.

Besides, earlier in this thread someone asked you the question already... why?

Why should it always be possible?

Bye
Thanee

Except that under the rules for a critical glitch, it specifically states that using edge will still have the result of failure. This further reinforces the fact that the only legitimate use for edge in a glitch situation is to downgrade the glitch type. If you could just pick up dice and reroll a crit glitch, then a success result would be possible.

No, that is not what the rules say, they say that you are allowed to use Edge to downgrade a critical glitch to a regular glitch, and that you still fail if you do so. This only means that this use of Edge does not generate any hits. It does not mean that this is the only option to use Edge, nor that it is impossible to still succeed on the test.
For your convenience:

Not every task. Edge is a limited resource.

Quite so. It is this passage that implies glitches are not a definition of a subset of roll results but a separate event caused by them. You can have a standard glitch without any hits, so it is not unthinkable that you could allow a critical glitch with a successful roll (having used Edge to re-roll).

Yes, it is. You're not even arguing RAI here, you're arguing unwritten rules as possibly intended. URAPI.

URAPI. I should probably come up with a better sounding acronym. Making Unwarranted Claims Known. MUCK! There we go. You're MUCKing things up.

Anyway, back to the facts.

Using edge is not a Dice Pool Modifier. Bull, the highest authority to have spoken on the matter has confirmed this. Edge never refers to itself as a modifier. Modifiers are situational, the use of edge is activational. Therefore edge cannot have an effect on the status of a glitch unless otherwise noted. There is only one stated exception, and that is using edge to downgrade the status of a glitch.

Unless new information can be brought to the table, (A higher authority, or a rules quote that specifically mentions edge as a dice pool modifier or rerolling as an acceptable way to negate a glitch) there really is no further point in me posting, I've clarified RAW and RAI as much as can be done. Hope this helped.

You're arguing unwritten rules as possibly intended.

Are you trolling, or did you not read the last page of this thread?

I did, and I still disagree with your position.

Thats fine. You can disagree all you want and play your home games with whatever house rules you'd like. Free Country and all that buddy.

Just don't expect to pull that at a Missions game at a convention. Hopefully you understand that now and won't get burned/upset should you suffer a crit glitch. If you still don't understand, it's no skin off my back.

Oh, if I show up to a missions game, I'll be playing a demolitions expert.

With a 30 point hatred of furniture.

("What do you mean, I can't lob my grenade at a location? I'm trying to hit that dining set!")

By definition, a roll without any successes is a failure.



Actually, I'm pointing out that if you allow for a critical success along with a critical failure, the net result is a normal botch. There's no need to make up a special rule for that, making your point redundant.



That's why I allow rerolls on a normal botch, but not on criticals. Really, making criticals and non-criticals follow different rules isn't such a difficult thing, and neatly handles all the edge cases being thrown about.

That's not what you implied however many posts back. You said a critical success and a critical failure co-occurring is absurd. I said it isn't, which is only redundant if you recant your previous claim.

If you want to further discuss your previous claim I'm more than happy to do so, but I have no qualms with this new claim.

I don't see that implication.

Only if you used edge to downgrade a critical glitch to a regular glitch.

Not unthinkable but against the rules. The roll that is judged as a critical glitch can never have any hits, by definition. Additionally there is no rule to keep 1s that are rerolled, nor do the rules permit to calculate the result of the test before the test is concluded.

I already proved from the rules in the BBB that using edge as additional dice is a dice pool modifier.

I'd really like to read what Bull actually wrote about this. Can you quote him?

The use of Edge changes the situation even though this change is activated by the player. How is that not situational?

You do know that appealing to a higher authority is not proof, don't you?

True, but what has been posited was that for a critical glitch to occur failure and more than half the dice pool of 1s would be sufficient. That is wrong. You need half a dice pool of 1s and not a single hit. An example: dice pool 2, threshold 2 test, the dice come up with 1 and 5. This is a failure and a glitch but not a critical glitch. For a critical glitch you would need for example 1, 4.

It might work, but you are denying your players legitimate options.

Well, but that is not always then...

Ok, back to the serious part of my post...

I would still really like to know your reasons, why you think that it should "always" be allowed to generate more hits.

Bye
Thanee

Easy.

I am given a list of uses for edge. One of them is "roll more dice."

It doesn't say I can't use it (or any of the other edge uses) when I have a glitch or critical glitch. Therefore I may use that option at any time, provided I have not already used edge on this roll and still have edge left to spend.

I like that.

I know who I'm going to call when the furniture uprising begins!

Bah, furniture is harmless. It's the floors that are out to get us. Even worse, the natural ones are in league with the manufactured ones.

I don't recall ever using the word "absurd".


I don't see it as a legitimate option. I see negating a critical as the only legitimate rule.

D'oh! No, it was StealthSigma. Sorry about that.

That's an explanation why the RAW rules can/should be read that way.

But that's not what I meant.


I was under the impression that you think it should be that way (regardless of how the rules actually state it), because ... <enter reason here>

Or in other words, if the rules clearly spelled out, that you cannot use any other Edge options other than negating a Glitch, why would that be a bad thing in your opinion?

Bye
Thanee

Ahhh.

Now you want an opinion on a house rule.

If the rules spelled it out that way, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I might still object to what a "downgraded critical glitch" actually is, and how it would differ from a "glitch failure" (if at all).

But no, it is not a bad rule.

But it is a house rule not supported by RAW.

Ok, so the reason you think it should be the way you say, is because that would be following the rules, not because you think it is the preferable solution. I see.

Bye
Thanee

I don't think it's the ideal solution--if we're going to be hacking out rules for the sake of hacking out rules--but it's not a bad solution.

Given the greyness of all this.. I don't think anyone should be throwing around the words house rule for any of the possible RAW interpretations.

My take is glitches are rare enough that they don't need to be made even more rare by tricks like rerolling dice. Once the glitch is rolled it stays a glitch no matter how many more dice you roll. You can edge to eliminate or downgrade it, but it's like a status flag... once the flag is waved the only way to remove is to pay the piper. So a critical failure and success at the same time is possible... (ever heard of a phyrric victory).

"You gun down the mook in a spray of blood and gore... you hear a loud 'clank' from inside your gun as something breaks, you'll have to get that fixed after the run" Or you the bullets destroy something you were trying to recover at the same time as you did something else. Sweet and sour here.

Really most of the glitch results are pretty minor and tend to be funny... when done properly... best laid plans of mice and men and all. By the time you're rolling 10 or 12 dice they're almost nonexistent and really don't need to be made even less existent.

In my case I find it extremely preferable, to the point that I would leave a game if this were not made clear from the outset and later sprung on me.


This is not a valid argument. It has nothing to do with the rules.

Oh behave. The rules as written, as has been abundantly acknowledged already, are insufficient on this issue. Falconer was offering up his own preference for filling in the gap, not making an argument on RAW or RAI.

I disagree that the rules are insufficient on this issue. They allow rerolls on any test and lack any sort of the limiting factor that you all are trying to claim they imply; ergo, according to the rules, the reroll interpretation is correct.

Ergo, vis a vis, veni vidi vici, semper fidelis tyrannosaurus, concordantly, the rules say you can't, as edge isnt a Dice Pool Modifier. I used more latin, so I win.

Maybe, when the argument is about how the rule (RAW) works.

But it certainly is a valid argument, when it is about how the rule should work.

Bye
Thanee

Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus?
Always Faithful T-Rex?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
Can I name it Sue?

I think it's a male T-Rex.
I suppose you could still call it Sue if you wanted to. There's no law against it, after all.

Right, I still need to address this... interesting argument.

First of all, the topic under discussion is the use of Edge to reroll the failed dice in the test. Since I assume that you wouldn't be so... interesting as to argue that, had the Edge been spent prior to the test and the Rule of Six applied to the entire roll, any additional hits gained by exploding Ability + Skill dice wouldn't count towards the calculation of a glitch, you'd concede that by rerolling the original dice (instead of adding additional dice) the issue of a dice pool modifier is bypassed entirely.

Very close, well done. The t-rex can be further broken down into Always Faithful Tyrant Lizard. It's a little known fact that John Wilkes booth actually shouted Sic Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus after killing Lincoln, as Boothe found out our 16th President was one of the Reptilian Greys.



Had edge been spent prior, the only way to successfully handle it according to the rules would be to keep separate track, rolling an official 'Dice Pool' and a bonus dice pool. Any sixes on the Dice Pool would lead to extra dice going into the bonus dice pool. I'd say BDP to shorten things up, but it sounds vaguely pornographic, which is the best kind of pornographic. This, as far as I know, is the only actual way to get a critical glitch while having more then zero successes, as the rules for critical glitching flat out state that the use of edge to negate a crit glitch will still result in failure.

Lastly, I'd like to see some sort of unified drive of regular posters here. It annoys me that so much time is wasted arguing rules and ignoring inconvenient text rather then just demanding straightforward answers from the people making a buck off the product.

Then again, I've got a feeling some folks would prefer arguing into oblivion rather then conceding an official stance on a rules issue, but I digress.

This sentence makes no sense, for four reasons:

1) Dice don't have successes, they have hits (see the brief note at the beginning of the book where it discusses the changes from SR3).
2) Had edge been spent before hand precludes the ability to spend edge to negate a crit glitch.
3) If the dice pool has successes (or hits) the roll cannot be a critical glitch.
4) I fail to see the connection between "as the rules for critical glitching flat out state" and "the use of edge to negate a crit glitch will still result in failure" and how that relates to the act of rolling dice.

...And what could you possibly point to in the rulebook to justify this? This is almost comically nonsensical.


I PMed Bull about this yesterday; he has yet to get back to me. I honestly wasn't sure who else to ask.

Then name the sentence which says incontrovertibly and conclusively that glitches are determined only after the dice have stopped rolling, including all rerolls.

You can't cite this authority as it does not exist.

I can make a solid case that a glitch is determined as soon as the dice stop moving the first time. Why, because the rules make to provision to negate it... hence the glitch has already been determined before the edge is spent! Nothing in reroll the dice states that it negates the glitch result. I don't make this argument because it's just as nebulous as your argument.

You're simply operating within the greyness of the rules fog here just as the rest of us are. And imposing your reading as the only possible RAW when it's not. Given that it's grey... I gave my preference of interpretation and my reason why I prefer it that way (that glitches aren't common enough as is... and making them even easier to negate while getting an even better result isn't the best way to go).

Similarly, if I edge in advance... the rules don't say to roll an additional die for each 6... it says to reroll the dice... so lets say I roll 10 dice and every single one comes up 6. I reroll every one of them and they all come up 1. I've managed a glitch... over half the dice have come up 1's while at the same time with 10 successes I may have a critical success. It's unclear and up to the GM to arbitrate accordingly.

If it were up to me to write SR5 edge mechanic... I'd go with reroll every dice which isn't a '1' or a success... that'd make it a much harder choice between adding edge dice to roll in addition, or reroling the 'non-results'.

I can make that case for a critical glitch, at least.


In other words, it's impossible to determine whether a critical glitch has occurred until after any Edge expenditure is resolved, because it's impossible how many hits the test has until then. (Note that the crit-glitch text lacks any mention of the term "dice pool," meaning that hits from Edge incontrovertibly count for determining crit-glitches.)


In order for your argument to work, all of the following must be true:

--Edge dice have to be counted differently from every other modifier in the game
--Glitches are determined before, and separately from, success, failure, and critical glitches
--The generally allowed rerolling of dice is not allowed in case of a glitch

None of these things are stated in the rulebook anywhere. One of them (the last) is arguably contradicted when the book allows for a rerolling of all failed dice with no qualifications; adding an exception there is adding on text not written. Conversely, my argument requires nothing to be added nor taken away from the current rules text, which is why it's superior. You're having to bend a lot of rules and make a lot of things up in order for this to vaguely work. I can just point to what's already there. Why is this so hard to accept?


Um... yes? A glitch and a critical success are not mutually exclusive. I can roll 11 dice against threshold 1 and get 66666111111 for the same result, no Edge necessary.

On page 10 of a thread... you're simply rehashing old arguments again. You don't think I've read the thread I've been lurking in and following before posting?

1. I never said the only result of a glitch was to reduce or negate it with edge. (though this isn't an unreasonable house rule... since there is no text whatsoever in the rules suggesting this is the only way to spend edge once it occurs).
2. the rules clearly suggest a glitch/critical glitch is determined before spending edge. If it were not then you could use the options to reduce or negate it. They don't say potential glitch they say glitch.
3. I merely put forth once the rules determine a glitch has occured prior to the spending of edge it remains glitch unless negated. As none of the reroll dice or add dice state explicitly state that they remove a glitch... while an option is in there explicitly to remove a glitch without rolling dice. (the presence has already been determined by the time you make the choice... the choices you're arguing for do not state they remove that presence).

You have not put forth anything which clearly says when exactly the glitch is determined while I have. The only difference is that I'm not claiming it's the only interpretation. What you misunderstand is that I'm not trying to disprove you... the rules don't say when... it could be determined after they all stop moving or not. The RAW is utterly silent on the issue. That's what you don't see. All your arguments hinge on looking at the results after the SECOND roll of the dice when it can very easily be... after the first roll, after the second roll, or if on either result.

Falconer, I wrote that post at 4AM and you're one of three or four people in this thread who 1) have the same view and 2) don't have an avatar. Sorry if I confused you with anyone else.

But from what you're saying, you either didn't read my post, didn't read the rules I mentioned, or both. I addressed point 2 by showing that, in the total absence of any statement in the rules stating that they don't, hits from Edge must count for determining a critical glitch. Now you can assume that critical glitches are determined at a completely different time than glitches, but I prefer Occam's Razor to making up things to justify rules not found in the rulebook. I'm looking at the same rules you are and not seeing anything that supports your position at all.

Exactly... which is why I said I don't advance this line of argument that far as to call it authoritative. Just as you can't point out a SINGLE thread of evidence anywhere to state that adding dice negates a glitch result. Nor that any rerolling of dice negates a glitch result.

You can't. It does not exist. Nothing you've cited has advanced this at all... I can point to rules hinting that a glitch/critical glitch is resolved before edge is spent. But I cannot state authoratively that it is, or isn't re-resolved afterwards and neither can you.

All your appeals on authority don't matter unless you can point to rock hard completely unambiguous sourcing. That authority in there does not exist which is why the whole thing is grey.

Actually, I think I can--but you'll have to follow my logic, which you have so far seemed unwilling to do.


The first part of my argument addresses the critical glitch side, which I have already proven. I'm just going to quote myself and keep doing this in the seemingly increasingly futile hope that maybe you'll read it this time:


So critical glitches happen after Edge expenditures for certain. Now, do glitches? There is strong circumstantial evidence that they do:


In other words, in order to totally resolve a glitch, one has to know how many his were achieved on the test--including those added from Edge.

Does this definitively rule out determining that a glitch has occurred at a different time than the success or failure of the test, whether or not there has been a critical glitch, or even how bad the glitch actually is? I suppose so. But I find it almost idiotically unlikely compared to the assumption that all of this occurs at the same time--the assumption that most players would make. Put differently, if this timing is so special, they would have put something in the book about it.

Of course, it makes me look at the following phrase a little harder:


...Since we certainly can't know if the test has succeeded or failed until after Edge is resolved.

Have you ever tried variant A in your games? We usually play this way and glitches aren't that rare. That is because edge isn't an infinite recource, and having a edgepoint left or not, can often be the difference between live and death. So 80% of the glitches aren't rerolled since it's not worth the edge point.

Glitches still happen. And when you look at low dicepools, glitches are actually way too often. A PC with charisma 3 and a skillrating of 0 is described as "Social example: The typical man on the street." (SR4A P. 119). If I ask him to default for a social test he will glitch in 30% of all cases. That feels ridiculously unrealistic every time, since it is way to likely.

IMHO there is no reason to use houserules to make glitches more likely.

You're completely missing my point. You're saying apple + orange == banana. Rule of six is only related to edge dice (only way to edge dice is edge in advance in which case all of this is moot, or add successes from edge dice after a result has been determined... including glitches IMO). And doesn't address in any wy shape or form the rerolling of dice which aren't already successes (which doesn't involve the rule of six at all).

And my point is exactly the opposite of yours. It would be impossible to negate/downgrade a glitch result UNLESS IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED after the first roll of the dice. Yet that way is another valid way to spend edge. Therefor I'm saying that a determination is made after the first roll of the dice (including edge if edged in advance; in which case all of this argument is moot because no more edge can be spent on the test). Then edge can be spent again, to add more successes but not necessarily to negate a glitch result as rolling more dice DOES NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT it can change glitch result.

Your entire argument hinges on WHEN the determination of a glitch is made. Which the rules NEVER SAY. In fact, the spending of edge to negate only hints that it happens immediately after the first roll but does not outright say this and is not authoritative either.

Your argument is entirely based on shoddy logic and a foundation of sand. You claim two completely unrelated rules produce a different result. It's not enough to say it's conclusive and authoritative. The problem is there's multiple POSSIBLE readings of the RAW which do not contradict the written rules but which do produce differing outcomes entirely depending on WhEN the result of glitch is determined and if it's 'sticky' with rerolls or not. All of which the rules are entirely silent on.


Garvel:
Social glitches are some of the best... they're easy to resolve. Rarely deadly... and very easy to handle in fun ways for everyone. The social faux paux.

But when it comes to say weapon attacks and Ex(-ex) ammo. A glitch result is supposed to blow the gun up... since +1 damage on every shot is a huge advantage this should be restricted more competent (higher skilled) users. Low skill users have a higher chance of having the gun bow up in their face unless they negate the glitch. That is exceedingly rare as people will simply reroll dice if allowed get more successes hitting the target even more and not having the thing blow up in their face.

And how much edge you have is purely a function of your GM and pacing. It's up to him when it refreshes... it has far less to do with the rules as regards glitches and the GM's fancy on their results. Your GM may refresh edge multiple times per night, once per session, or once per mission arc. All this changes things and makes your arguments quite a bit less persuasive to me.

And yes I have been playing this game since the early 90's. So Plese don't hit me with a sob story about spending edge to do something then not having any left later. It's game, sometimes you win... sometimes you lose... the fun is in how you ply the game.

I think if you roll a glitch, you have to spend edge to negate it. on the other hand, if you see using edge to re-roll the entire DP and say that the first roll never happened, then you can argue there is no glitch. the first one makes the most sense imo. just because crap, you screwed up trying to fix your bike, BUT you were lucky enough that it did not frag it up. the other way basicly states that, you screwed it up, rewind time, you did not screw it up. RAW it is, as always, so ambiguous that its w/e. RAI I beleive (through use of commen sense, the bad wording, and what is implied) that you must spend an edge point to negate a glitch.

There is a difference between "resolving a glitch" and "a glitch occurring". If you look at the flowchart I provided a few pages upthread, resolution of the test and any glitches resulting thereof necessarily occurs after any post-dice roll uses of Edge (for rerolling or negating glitches) have been declared and factored in. And as both Falconer and I have pointed out, you cannot "negate" a glitch that has not yet occurred (or for that matter reroll non-hits before determining what was a 'hit' and a 'non-hit').

The use of Edge to affect a roll after it has been made (but obviously, before it has been resolved) is a pretty special and unique case, as is rerolling dice (there are only 2 such mechanics, exploding 6's and Edge reroll of misses), so it is impossible to claim any particular inference, assumption or unwritten rules (or the lack thereof) as "proof" of either interpretation.

Exactly.

It is unfortunate that some people seemingly lack the ability to objectively analyze the validity of other peoples' interpretations of the RAW where they differ from their own. Dakka called my RAW interpretation (which is similar if not identical to yours) flat-out wrong a few pages upthread, and I am still waiting for him to put his money where his mouth is and show me the RAW that disproves my interpretation.