Interesting, interesting.

So in your games you allow somebody else to show up and negotiate after a deal is closed? I've never heard of such a thing. Mr. Johnson is really going to agree, after 20 minutes of haggling and managing to get the runners to agree to a price of 50 nuyen each, to renegotiate with the adept?

As for combat, that +2 will be applying to all the tests. Oh darn, your face's TN for a dodge test just went from a 4 to a 6. Good luck dodging a shot that has more than 2 successes behind it, and pray nobody fires a burst or full-auto fire giving you and even higher modifier.

And let's look at the long-term effects of this "Munchkinning." At the end of the run, face and samurai get 1 bonus karma each. Most people suggest build-points are equal to 5-10 karma. Given the +2-3 value for a mild allergy, your players are looking at 10-30 runs before they make up the karma value they could have gotten on their skills and atributes right from the start. How horrifying. Why, after a measly 20 successful runs your elven face is going to have a whole extra karma pool die!

Firstly, if you *know* you are combat incapable, especially after breaking out in hives since you just ate a krill bar, I think you would use this nifty thing called full cover. Like, lie and cower on the floor of the car and toss the odd flashbang out a window from a position of full cover so that technically you are participating in combat. You wouldn't be effective, but as long as the party has flare comp you'd still just be cashing in on extra karma without being destructive.

Secondly, you obviously can fire at the enemy if you have 100% cover because there are rules for firing through and blind fire. If I try to shoot through a wall at you and neither of us can see each other at all, that's clearly a situation where we both have 100% cover from the other. Similarly, the rules never say you can't just blindly lob grenades in the general suspected direction of enemies. In fact, that's one use for them in real life. You can bank them around corners or toss them through windows to avoid exposing yourself. Use flashbangs or something pointless if you don't want the +2 TN to make you accidentally kill the party.

Thirdly, I already think that karma dice can become too powerful. Even one more karma dice is a pretty big asset. The last thing I want to do is add an extra rule that speeds up the rate at which people acquire karma dice, even if it is a marginal increase.

That's great. So I can't pump 1 flaw 3 times, but I can pump 3 flaws one time each every single session.

Personally, when I GM these days, each adventure usually takes exactly 1 session to complete. I used to have long story arcs but found those less flexible than neat 1 session adventures.

So if someone GMs like me, then that would result in getting several extra karma points per game, effectively doubling or possibly even tripling the karma reap from each session.

Exactly. This is exactly it. You're effectively saying, "No one can get karma from this house rule unless they think exactly like I do. Unless they go about trying to get the karma in a me-approved way, I'll tell them that what they did retrospectively didn't count. Because I want to make sure everyone has fun, and people like being told their ideas don't count."

Because if you don't say that, this house rule wouldn't be effective anyway.

And when you do that, you are not running an RPG, you are writing a novel.

Things like that are asking the players and GM to keep the rule in check from being off balance rather than making sure the rule isn't off balance first.

No one is saying an alternative to the present flaw point system is a bad idea.
And no one is really saying that changing it to Karma rewards is a bad thing either.
What they are saying, however, is that they present way that the rule is written is not going to work.
They are telling you that it needs to be revised.

Don't get upset. Just go back and re-hash it out again into a new version and toss it back out here.

I'm assuming that if you post a rule here that you are asking for opinions on it's functionality and strength if employed into the system.
In doing so, you are asking people to tell you if you need to re-work the rule.
They have basically, in a very loud continual voice, said "yes, you need to re-work this rule."
So go re-work it, then bring it back. Don't get hurt about it. Just try and find a way that it does what you are aiming for it to do and also appeases the population that you care about appeasing with it.

And if you don't care about appeasing the DSF population, then you really shouldn't post it here for review unless you just want to argue pointlessly about it because the DSF population is among a collection of some of the most hard-headed people known to the internet, so I'll just hope that you actually want their opinions and are trying to target the DSF population for this rule rather than an alternative that makes you seem silly to me for just posting so you can argue with a bunch of stuborn people.

I'm sure you can find a way to re-work the rule, so go back, look at it again. Re-work it as I'm sure you will be able to do, and bring it back.

While the mirror idea is silly, it is quite possible to get the same effects much more reliably using a guncam with a datajack port and an image link. The US army is experimenting with that very system now, although with an LCD monocle instead of cyber implants. You can accurately shoot around corners exposing nothing but your hand, that's not 100% cover, but 99% is close enough.
I'm suprised such a system isn't used more often in Shadowrun.

Not to be contrary, but I doubt anoy of us will live to see the day when anyone publishes "munchkin-proof" rules.

They're good, but they're certainly not munchkin proof. If just requires some heavy number-crunching. If you use recent eratta and SOTA you can do some things that are downright insane. Although, Newton wasn't involved with the additions they're still canon.