Irion, it allready has been pointed out. Also I do not need anything but the rules, to back up "my" claim. The german print is a correctet version. If you want something to back that up... you don't have to believe me, I don't really care, to be honest. As for the -2 modifier not being in these rules anymore... well, it is not in there. Or to quote the book on it:



As to the original pdf release:



It is clear, that no defense test is to be made.

There is one case that has a defense roll, as it explicitly uses the standard Ranged Attack rules:



Now... please point me to the section that clearly and explicitly says, that one gets to roll defense on grenades (or indirect area combat spells). Please refrain from pointing out examples, if you want to back your claim use actual rules.

Just a quick note:

Aaron confirmed on the official forums that there is no dodge for AoE attacks.
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index....topic=11514.255 (there is a lot of info in this thread, but page 18 is where this answer is).

The -2 in the table is a copy-paste error (hold-over) from SR4.

Edit: except for motion sensor*

A quote from this thread:

So please forgive me for not really buying into it. Anything contradicting at least 3 written statements in the book is taken with a BIG grain of salt.
After all FAQs where more than one guys quick opinion and ah well....

1) How many dice does a “spot on the ground” roll to defend? With grenades the target (who would be the defender) is “choose a location as a target” (p181). If you throw the grenade at someone they are now the target and would get to roll defense, however if they are simply unlucky enough to be standing in the blast zone, they are not the target and do not get to defend.
2) (and 5) are the same table, copy and pasted from SR4 (as per reference above).
3) AoE Indirect Combat Spells say that they work like grenades except that you add your net hits (from the 3 threshold) to the damage. So this reference is correct. No changes needed. I believe (I could be wrong here) that you are trying to include the rules for the single-target Indirect Combat Spells in the AoE part, they are separate though making this more clear would be nice.
4) You are correct that example seems to be wrong all the way around. Many of the examples in the book are in error (like dwarves not having Thermographic vision and every sample character).
5) See #2
6) I agree. It does need clarification, with either interpretation of the rules.
7) See #2 (and #5), copy and paste error.

Please note that the German version of the book has some of the errata included and the -2 defensive modifier has been removed from that printing (as noted earlier).

Edit: If you remove #2, 5 and 7 (copy/paste error) and accecpt that #1 and 3 are correct. That leaves the example being wrong, and one reference that needs clarification (not that it is wrong, but poorly worded). So out of the list of 7 only 1 is wrong and not already corrected.

Honestly, do you read what you write yourself?

And we are not talking here about one word copy paste error or one perk beeing given to a character which should not have it. That may happen due to misscomunication.

1) The Spot is not defending. Everybody who is in the blast radius is defending against the blast. The question is not where the granade goes up, the question is if you are damaged in the blast. Like a Reflex safe in DnD.
2) The point beeing is they are not really copyed and pasted, there are some changes. For example different modifiers for flechette shotgun and adding the narrow spread. And even the clarification behind the AOE attack (granade, missle) is gone. Which is quite interesting considering the fact, that spells would now follow the same rules. But still, as a single point, I get it.
4) Yeah, but thats a whole other step. Giving an additional perk by accident is an easy mistake. Writing two or more sentances by accident is not. And it can't be a misunderständing from previous editions, well because it worked differently back then.

In addition you have the text I quoted above:

To compare it here is the wording from 4A.

If it would be the same text, I would go with copy paste, but the guy who wrote it added spells. (Which again makes sense, because the work now like granades)

So you end up with several rules pointing towards the fact that whenever you are in the blast radius of an attack, you get to use your defence pool to escape the blast. Of course they could all be copy and paste errors. But there are alterations in the text and they are "copied" consistantly. Sure if there would only be the table and it would be missing the description (or the other way around) or if it would be a one to one copy of the old text, I would go with your interpretation. But as it stands, in order to follow your interpretation you have to disregard between 4-7 (depending how striktly you read them) independant accounts in the book. Starting from general rulings (telling you always get a defence test in ranged combat) down to an explicit examples. Thats just more than most rules are based on in general. There ain't an example to every rule, their ain't an explaination to every modifier, not every modifier is listed in a table. And since I am a friend of ockham's razor I would rather assume that you can now defend against a blast (which is not contradicted anywhere in the rules) than to assume there were several independent errors which are all misleading into this direction. It is the same as saying god planted the fossils to trick us into believing in evolution. And honestly several independant copy and paste or simple errors which would make sense within greatly changed set of rules and which happen to be in line with an example used... The propability for that is quite low.

Please find a rule citation (meaning rules text, not an example) describing this test, how precisely it operates, and what other test it defends against.

Remember everyone, if you go purely by examples you'll find a reference to smartgun systems providing recoil compensation.

I can't help but feel that many of the examples were written during playtesting and a bunch of mistakes slipped through the final edit. With a few exceptions it's no big deal, everyone makes mistakes and the more iterations something goes through the better the odds of something slipping through.

However... I for one would like the final step before release of further editions to be grab a random bunch of people who've never played shadowrun in their lives before and have them run through 3 sessions with no outside help and one player for each archtype. Then listen to their feedback. At the very least it would have revealed the lack of autosoft prices...

Funny choice of words. The word 'slip' IMO implies a sense of effort or difficulty, that seems completely misplaced in this context.

I have done a bit of writing in my time. Errors get through, it happens. I at least have the advantage of writing a coherent story, so I can read the whole thing aloud in order to make sure it all sounds right. Rulebooks don't have that option.

I can't speak to these particular errors (proofreaders are not editors or game designers) but I can say that errors previously caught by proofreaders managed to make it into the final print. The editing on SR5 is definitely lacking.

Really?

If you're paying for proofreaders to go through and catch errors, then ignore the errors they find... why are you hiring proofreaders?

EDIT: Rhetorical question.

Luckily that is on the errata list (and has already been corrected in the german print).


About the grenades...

- Those with Timer, offer the defense mechanism of time as in, you may move away before it blows up. I do not see any defense roll being offered here.
- WiFi grenades offer a smaller window to actually move away but this is the most likely defense here (another one being a hacker). I do not see any defense roll being offered here either.
- Grenades with Motion Sensor only offer a defense roll (without any special grenade malus), as they explode on impact. If the defense roll is a successful one, the grenade scatters for 2d6 meters and will likely still deal damage.

The tough one on that are the AOE indirect combat spells... they do not offer any real defense, as they are targeted on a spot (threshold 3) and has no falloff on the damage it deals.

I still do not see the paragraph of the rules, that explicitly says otherwise.

You should look up the rates at which errors persist even after the text has been reviewed by multiple people - it's higher than you clearly think.

But that sort of playtesting is pretty vital, I'd say. Really, it should be done with groups of neophytes to the game, and for established games groups of experienced players, and with mixed groups.

I was going to suggest hiring runners to kidnap random people from all walks of life to act as playtesters, but then I realized that Catalyst would never spring for the runners' fee.

And, you know, you want to at least focus on people interested in RPGs.

@Isath

Already gave that quote. It is a general rule, applyed to ALL range combat. Granades are a subchapter of projectile weapons and follow the same rules if not stated otherwise. And there is no statement to the opposite. It is said that there are additional rules (beeing that you have to have at least 3 hits to ignore scatter) ,this strongly implies that all general rules still apply.

No you did not give that quote... and even then that quote is NOT relevant.

Why? because the grenade rules *DO* specifically state otherwise.

Read the description of tests and notations section in the start of the book. The grenade test is clearly a success test, not an opposed test. There is no 'evasion reflex save'... even in the older edition of the game there wasn't an evasion reflex save.


Your entire argument rests on two things... a dead letter item of rules. (no rules invoking an opposed test except for motion sensor grenades... and others have now stated & linked you text that the powers that be are stripping that text out in the errata as it was from an earlier writeup). And from a flawed example which directly contradicts the rules next to it. Then you ignore that rules text always takes precedence over an example if they're in conflict. And that SPECIFIC rules always override general rules if they're given.

In this case, even if we grant a 'general' rule (which I don't), the grenades themselves invoke specific rules. The indirect AOE spells then invoke the same general grenade placement and blast rules. Those rules give *NO* opposed test. There is no 'evasion reflex save' as you put it.

At this point you're not even being a good rules lawyer. You're ranting based on provably wrong examples (if the example contradicts the RAW it's wrong)... charts with an extra line-item originally copied from a prior edition (then later dropped in later revisions of the rules). So your entire argument is based on misapplying the rules, and some vague notions that are nowhere in the book. Your attempts at arguing intent (RAI vs RAW) explicitly ignore that the devs themselves have come out and stated the opposite of your claim. At this point your entire argument is entirely wishful thinking on your part.

And it is stated otherwise, when it is stated that grenades use a Simple Test, not an Opposed Test.