[mtfeeney = Baron]

I didn't say anything about the word suffer.  I showed you that damage is after soak.

Here's a question, though.  It looks like the suppressive fire rules say about didn't reduce the dv.  Please tell me this has been fixed or refuted somewhere.

[Shadowjack]

Good find, Falconer. But what about "large wound" or "bleeding"? Those terms are much more definitive than "suffers". While I see your point, the diction you would require to have a clear definition of a rule would be a word count nightmare. Regarding the 'rules operative sentence', I agree that was a mistake by the writer but sometimes as a player you need to make an educated guess about the intended meaning. Perhaps that is simply not enough to satisfy you but as I read the entire description of Platelet Factories the rule is very clear to me.

[Falconer]

mtfeeney:
Suppressive fire is reduced by armor and soaked.   Your cite isn't operative here.   Damage is referred to at many points... in both a pre and post-soak sense throughout the rule book.  You don't mark off damage until the final step.

Shadowjack:
That cite was early in this thread on the first or second page... I thought you were already aware of it.

It comes down to a matter of writing style... read many of the entries in the book.   It's not uncommon for there to be a fluff sentence or paragraph which describes/flavors the toy.   Then this is immediately followed by a 'hard' rules sentence or paragraphs which explain exactly how to adjudicate the effect...  What does it mean to reduce bleeding?  the next  sentence answers it... it reduces damage suffered over 3 by 1.   Which brings up the problem... what does it mean to 'suffer' damage... since the book uses suffer interchangeably pre and post soak throughout the rules.


And I'm going to reiterate this... I think you have the correct reading of INTENT... and I play it the same way.  I just don't think there's enough support in the rules to look at any particular GM and say.  You're house ruling that and doing it wrong!  Because it is ambiguous enough to cause confusion.


To give another example... the first sentence mentions physical damage... but the sentence immediatelly after it makes no distinction between stun and physical damage.   The intent can be argued that it only work for physical and not stun...  but by the same token a counter-argument can be made that it also says that any damage over 2 is reduced by one.


When stuff like this comes up in the rulebook... the only thing you can do as a rules lawyer is point the player at their GM and tell them to talk to them.  Because it's ambiguous and is read either way at different tables and the GM may have particular ideas about how he wants to handle it.  And put yourself in the GM's pants... do you really want a bunch of internet know-it-all's in a forum which commonly produces some pretty egregious powergaming combos telling you how to run your game?

That's why when it comes to the forums I often take it upon myself to play devil's advocate for the GM.