[Glorthoron]

Damage Compensator: "The user may ignore a number of damage boxes (both Physical and Stun)
equal to the compensator’s rating before determining injury modifiers."

I just want a clarrification that I am reading this right, because grammatically it could be interpreted two ways.

My Interpretation: A person with a Damage Compensator (Rating 5) can ignore 5 boxes of physical damage + 5 boxes of stun damage.

It also reads as such: A person with a Damage Compensator (Rating 5) can ignore 5 boxes of physical, 5 boxes of stun, or a combination of the two that equals 5, such as 3 physical and 2 stun; or 4 physical and 1 stun; etc.

Thanks in advance.

G.

[Kesslan]

My understanding of the damage compensator has always been that it compensates for the rating number of boxes in damage, be it Physical or Stun. Not that it basically ignores Raiting X2 in damage boxes (1/2 stun, 1/2 physical). This is especially true of the fact that sufficient damage boxes on either stun or physical give penalties. You can stay concious but be effectively crippled because you have X boxes of stun damage, and X boxes of Physical damage.

That's personal interpretation though. Ultimately I'd say it's a GM call thing but in any games I GM I always read it as a total flat value of boxes compensated for.

[Lethe]

I would use the interpretation that causes less followup problems.

1)Ignoring 5 boxes of each track is quite clear.

2)Ignoring 5 as a combination, you would need to ask yourself, where the priorities are. First from one track, then from the other, in temporary order, or the one that has the most damage first.

For 2) i assume, they would have added more clarification, so it has to be 1).

[Mason]

It says "BOTH Physical and Stun". Not "a mixture of Physical and Stun". It ignores damage to both tracks.

[raggedhalo]

I agree - otherwise it would say Physical or Stun.

[_Pax_]

In prior editions, the protection was 100% on each track.  Damage Compensator (3) would protect you from 3 boxes physical, and 3 boxes stun.  At the same time.

[All4BigGuns]

Now that this is brought up, I think I'll start ignoring the mention of stun in that implant since stun has the Pain Editor.

[Mirikon]

I agree with the consensus. You ignore [Rating] Physical and [Rating] Stun. As for the pain editor, that would stack with the Damage Compensator, but that is a Bad Idea^(tm) on the player's part, IMHO. They overlap functionality in a dangerous way, and not being able to know how much damage you've taken unless a biomonitor tells you is NOT a good thing in a fight.

[Reaver]

I agree with the consensus. You ignore [Rating] Physical and [Rating] Stun. As for the pain editor, that would stack with the Damage Compensator, but that is a Bad Idea^(tm) on the player's part, IMHO. They overlap functionality in a dangerous way, and not being able to know how much damage you've taken unless a biomonitor tells you is NOT a good thing in a fight.

BUT it's great fun for the GM who is tracking how much damage that character has taken <Evil Grin> We get to decide exactly when you fall down!

This has lead to all sorts of nicknames in my Campaigns