Except for the fact that it is obviously stated in the first sentence of the Eye Light's description.

Nobody is telling you how to run your games. There are, though, people that would like an official ruling on things, one way or the other. They are also free to ignore the ruling or not, but that in no way invalidates the ruling in the first place.

As I said, in my games I use some things from canon (whether from books or FAQ), and ignore others. I make up house rules when necessary, but like to have some basis for those rulings in the first place. YMMV

Obviously I did, since the most official ruling I can find seems to back up the way I read Eye Lights working.

So then you are saying the above is true (while simultaneously confusing an email citing a suggested house rule from an official source as an actual official ruling).

Fascinating.

"....(the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes)..."

Right there. It only applies to magicians, but it specifically states "cybereyes" even though it's obviously a throw-away line, just like with the Eye Light Systems. Thus, according to Fortune and ShadowFAQ, that means either 1) magicians must take cybereyes if they want to use Vision Magnification, and then they may only take the Optical Vision Magnification version or 2) magicians without cybereyes can take and use Electronic Vision Magnification with their magic.

Note that it doesn't matter if they're an adept either, or someone who doesn't use spells or rely on LOS. Any magician with cybereyes can only take Optical Vision Magnification according to that entry OR cannot take Electronic Vision Magnfiication at all, even as a retinal modifiation.

My post was solely in response to your last statement ...

I'm not twisting any words. That statement was in direct relation to what I said before it.

"....(the latter are necessary for magicians with cybereyes)..."

Dr. Funk, I read that to mean that a Magician with Natural Eyes can use Electronic Vision Mag, but if he has Cyber Eyes and Vision Mag, then that Vision Mag has to be optical. Aren't I right on this?

I see nothing there that indicates that Cybereyes are required if you want Vision Mag.

So fine. Ignore the FAQ answer in your games. You've stated you don't like it, you've stated why. So why continue to bash it, call it silly, and insult the guy who answers the SR community's questions?

If you disagree with a FAQ or Errata, that's your right -- it's your game. But you're the one making the house rule. You don't have to be a dick about everything.

I don't know why I'm bothering to waste my breath on a jackass like yourself, but I was responding to a direct question asked of me by OurTeam on a message board dedicated to the rules of the game about the rules of the game.

So once again: Fuck off.

No, you were replying to his question about how you're exagerating the ShadowFAQ's position, reading into it examples that were never stated, and generally making an ass of yourself by going on and on about how "silly" the rule is. By putting words and rules into ShadowFAQ's mouth (and everyone else's who happen to disagree with you), you can trivialize the answer to the actual eye-light/natural eye question, batter it out of all recognizable shape, and make it look stupid. It makes for a valid, but not really legit, argument.

Every time you've posted about this rule, you've blown it more and more out of proportion, used more and more insulting adjectives about it, and generally acted more and more like a troll. You don't like it, we get it. Calm down.

Okay guys, let's try to tone it down. Name calling gets us nowhere. Funkenstein has made his position clear and so has almost everyone else.

Just for reference though, ShadowFAQ is just doing his job and answering a question to the best of his ability- he's even referenced why he made the call which is more than you can expect from other FAQers-, so give the guy a break.

If Funkenstein deems his reply as "silly" that's his opinion and as such is perfectly acceptable, after all it's only a matter of opinion.

However, ShadowFAQs reply should by no means be considered a "house rule", it is a ruling put forth by the person officially charged to do so by FanPro - it may even be wrong (we're all human) but it's the opinion of the person charged with giving his opinion on FanPro's behalf.

If and when, that "informal" email reply is included in the FAQ, it means it's met with Shadowrun developer's approval and becomes as canon as it gets (and if necessary a clarification will be included in forthcoming reprints) - whether people like the ruling or not, use it or not, it becomes part of the references SR writers have to take into account and is accepted as equally valid as anything printed in any current book (even superceding existing material in case of contradiction). Independently of how you feel about that particular ruling it becomes the "official" reference, and from that point on other contradictory interpretations are simply incorrect "per canon". In this respect there is no significant difference between a FAQ reply and an Errata.

There is a line in almost every Shadowrun book that tells you to drop or change anything you don't like or don't want in your game, rules or setting-wise - that is every GM's and player's perrogative. However, make no mistake for the game line developer, the writers and the material they put out from that point on the FAQ answer is just as valid as any printed book and later material will reflect this.

Well said Synner.

Also, remember, just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mena it has to be in your game. If a GM really wanted to, a great dragon qwould be made of circus peanuts if they so desired.

Me for example, I feel that astral perception should not peirce an active invisibility spell (not the improved invis, just the one that'deletes' the recipient from the viewers active conscious) but should be able to trace and analyze it once it is dropped. I wrote and asked the info peeps ar SR and they said that it does in fact pierce it, I disagree and I disregard when I run a game and that's it.

Maybe they're taking ShadowFAQ's answer as the canon material in question, and not the teeny tiny little fluff blurb from M&M. Rather than "because Eye Light Systems mention cybereyes in a generic fashion in passing," maybe Fortune's basing his acceptance of the rule on the fact it's what ShadowFAQ said.

Let me rephrase then.

Trying to argue that a bit of descriptive text (contextually and functionally) as a hardcore rule is pathetic when you run off and ask an official source for clarification without pointing out all the other material relative to the question. Then, when someone points out that another similar aspect of the game uses the same exact type of descriptive text (contextually and functionally), you try and argue that it's just meaningless fluff 'cause you're cool with it.

That's the pathetic part. Picking and choosing what rules you want to use in your own games is fine. When you try and get someone to make it official, then it does, indeed, become official and the logic used there should be used across the board.

That's why I have a problem here. I don't care what Fortune wants to do in his game anymore than I care what anyone else wants to do in their game. But when an official source comes out that affects my game (in that I will now have to come up with a house rule) to change something that doesn't need changing whatsoever and sets a baseline for changing multiple other aspects of the game... that's where my problem lies.

EDIT: Especially since if ShadowFaqs' comment is correct, he submitted it for inclusion as errata for the next printing of the book. Of course, he probably didn't even know about the Visiblity Modifiers Table because Fortune declined to mention it (since it was direct evidence contrary to his desires), so now the book *will* have *genuine* errata that needs to be corrected.

In other words, this ruling from ShadowFaq is creating an error, not fixing one.

I don't blame ShadowFaq for not realizing all the problems it causes or not realizing there were other rules contrary to his ruling (ie, the Visibility Modifiers Table). In truth, I like the guy as a person and normally respect what he has to say. My problem is with what he's saying, not who he is. Which is true most of the time when I'm making comments like what I've said in this thread.

Funk: What part of the phrase "My original question was specific to Eye Lights, because I wanted a specific answer from the closest-to-official source I can find" do you not understand?

I did not ask for a general extrapolation valid over the entire rules system.

I did not ask anything about Vision Magnification.

I did not ask for a clarification to be made on the validity of fluff text.

I inquired as to whether or not Eye Lights could be implanted as retinal modifications.

That was the entire extent of my question, to which the response was clear. 'Eye Lights, and their various components can only be installed in a Cybereye.' The response also went on to list other examples where 'Fluff' text and 'Game Effects' text might differ, but incidently did not mention Vision Magnification. No ruling was given, nor needed, in the cases of the Eye Laser, Eye Datajack, and Eye Weapons, because the answer is specifically laid out in the 'Game Effects' section.

yes, fortune, but the basis of the answer can logically be applied to other areas. the fact that you, specifically, didn't ask about those areas has no bearing on their application. what's good for the goose is good for the gander, even if you don't want a gander.

Right, but the fact the rule might be applied to things Fortune didn't ask about doesn't make it what Funk is claiming. He's laying blame and specifically accusing Fortune of purposefully manipulating ShadowFAQ into giving the answer he gave, just to ruin Funk's day, while simultaneously condemning ShadowFAQ for falling for the devious ploy and trying to (apparently) belittle him into changing his mind.

Which is absurd, and wholly different from a rational discussion about the repurcussions of this rules call.

But there is no discrepancy (except in Funk's mind) with Vision Magnification, or any other cybereye modification. If there is, then a specific question could be asked to clarify that particular problem, without making a blatently stupid blanket extrapolation from one of a few exceptions to the otherwise general rule that the retinal modification option could be taken for all implants.

Seriously, is anyone (obviously other than Funk) confused by the rules for Vision Magnification? Does it need official clarification?

The shoe fits snuggly. Especially since Fortune has tried to do this exact same thing in the past when people disagreed with him about the rules.

The only errata for Eye Light Systems is that "cybereye" needs to be changed to "eye." Doing so makes it consistant with its own Game Effects, the Visibility Modifiers Table, and everything else in the game.

And even that doesn't *need* to happen, since the fact that the eyelight is a cybereye modification does not necessarily perclude it from being a retinal modification as well. All they're saying in that one half-line of flavor text is that the eyelight is a cybereye modification. Nowhere does it actually say that it cannot be taken as a retinal mod, which is the necessary condition for it to *not* be available as a retinal mod (see P. 44 M&M for details).

That said, I'm abandoning this topic. Despite being right Doc has once again managed to alienate even those who agree with him, not through any faults in his logic, but the flaws in his character. Learn to chill, buddy.

honestly? yes, some kind of sense for vision magnification would be nice. specifically, the part where cybereyes work with magic because they're paid for with essence, but that magically (heh) doesn't apply to vision mag. that's an argument for another thread, though.

edit: eyeless, that's the whole point of this thread. according to the official FAQ, which is at least half canon, eyelights (and certain other mods) cannot be taken with biological eyes. they can only be installed in cybereyes.

Only thing I'm confused on is why Vision mag and Smartlink had to be rendered incompatible for reasons other than it made the combo so deadly it was redicoulous. keep in mind it only becomes that way when you neglect the other potential modifiers.

Eh, Vision Magnification 3 with a Smartlink only provides a -1 TN bonus over Vision Magnification with a Laser Sight. As well it should be since, yanno, Smartlinks are supposed to be smart Laser Sights without the Laser.

No, blatant ignorance by sycophants who have to cry to mommy because they can't come up with a decent argument on their own, and holier-than-thou people who spend half their time whining in threads about how the topic is stupid, is what pisses me off. Solid and intelligent arguments, like what indivuduals such as OurTeam and mfb often provide, do not.

it's worth noting that this isn't--yet--an official ruling. the author of the reply doesn't know if it will be accepted into the FAQ, or into future errata. and, incidentally, if a player had tried to foist the "it's in the fluff" argument on me, i wouldn't have accepted it. the argument is very, very weak. if it gets FAQ'd/errata'd, okay, but the argument doesn't stand on its own.

Nice edit. Note that my original question included no arguments either for or against the ruling. No reference to the 'fluff' was ever made. I asked a straight question containing no bias one way or the other.

yeah, i try do the same thing when i send in questions. or, rather, i present both sides as evenly as possible. that was more a gripe against the original authors and their editors than anything; if it was intended that eyelights only be installed in cybereyes, i can't think of a less clear wording to convey that than what's in M&M.

well, i take that back. "eyelights can be installed in biological eyes" would have been a much less clear way to state that they can only be installed in cybereyes.

or a new digital camera with 20x zoom (optical) and 400x zoom (electronic)

Although mfb knows full well why, Electronic Magnification is invalid because it digitally recreates the image; you're no longer looking at the object, but a digital representation thereof. Optical Magnification modifies the way the light is reflecting in your eye, refocusing it to make it larger. You're still "seeing" the "real" object.

LOS for magic requires that you "see" the "real" object, which is why Optical Magnification is needed to establish LOS.

that's silly, though. for one, digital optics are, or should be, way beyond the resolution of the human eye. for another, if the resolution is that low, why doesn't it affect other ranged attacks?

and, yeah, i know about the electronic-recreation argument. i just don't like it, in light of the "paid for essence" thing.

No arguments from me on that. I was simply discussing the logic the game attempts to use between the two.

The thing that's really weird is that Vision Magnification plays no part in spellcasting. VM reduces range categories -- and spells don't have ranges other than just "LOS." Well, that and "Touch" and whatnot.

Again, no argument from me. But it just seems silly that Vision Magnification can magnify where a "dumb" laser dot is, but having the Smartlink Processer compensate for the change in Magnification is nigh impossible per the rules (and since they both have eye/cybereye components, they're automatically routed together if memory serves).

The difference with VM and a Laser Sight vs. VM and a Smartlink at Extreme Range is the same as it would be at point-blank range. Doesn't make a lot of sense that a Laser Sight's effectiveness jumps dramatically at Extreme Ranges, especially considering what little I know about firearms.

Smarlink+Rangefinder at Extreme range provides -2, for a base TN (when combined with vismag) of 0.

My personal answer would be to kill the magnification/laser sight combo.

And Critias, if there's a TOS violation, report him. Don't flame back.

~J

Actually a Smartlink-2 with Rangefinder and Vision Mag 3 at Extreme Range is (5-3) 2. If memory serves, range modifiers are: SM is 2/3/4(6)/7. SM+RF is 2/3/3(5)/5. LS+VS is 3/3/3/3. EDIT: D'oh, nevermind, even though I said it just a few minutes ago I forgot that VM reduces ranges, not providing a -1 bonus per range. Duh.

Anyway, I think the assumption is that if you have the two working together, Rangefinders are a thing of the past (and instead assumed to already be included in the Smartlink's bonus). Thus a Smartlink with Vision Magnification 3 would be 2 across the board, where a Laser Sight with VM3 would be 3 across the board. Rangefinders would be non-existant, or available for use with other devices instead of a Smartlink (with different rules).