[Padawan]

The problem is the word "would". If you hit me with a 30DV attack, I "would" suffer 30 damage, but it was reduced by my resistance test.

Now with that said, I personally agree that it should be after resistance, but I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise (although it would be a stretch).

[Wildcard]

By that reasoning, the factories would always reduce damage, because you "would" have taken 2 damage if it had been more then 1.

[Anarkitty]

The problem is the word "would". If you hit me with a 30DV attack, I "would" suffer 30 damage, but it was reduced by my resistance test.

Now with that said, I personally agree that it should be after resistance, but I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise (although it would be a stretch).

If a player in a game (even if I'm not the GM) ever tried to make that argument, I "would" smack them in the back of the head. 

[Shadowjack]

Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?

[RHat]

Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?

Unarmed Attack with Strength 2.  Shuriken with Strength 2.  There are probably a few other examples.

[FuelDrop]

Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?

Unarmed Attack with Strength 2.  Shuriken with Strength 2.  There are probably a few other examples.

+1 net hit.

[RHat]

Just to put the nail in the coffin: There are no 0 or 1 DV attacks. What that proves is Platelet Factories would affect all attacks. So if that was the case, why would it mention two or more boxes of damage?

Unarmed Attack with Strength 2.  Shuriken with Strength 2.  There are probably a few other examples.

+1 net hit.

Strictly speaking, that's not the DV of the attack, but the modified DV.

[Shadowjack]

Ah, yes. There are a very small amount of 1 DV attacks. But it is obviously not enough to warrant platelet factories being applied before actual damage is applied. It's very clear how they work.

[RHat]

Ah, yes. There are a very small amount of 1 DV attacks. But it is obviously not enough to warrant platelet factories being applied before actual damage is applied. It's very clear how they work.

You said none.

In any case:  The text isn't "would take damage", its "suffers damage".  You suffer the damage you don't resist - that is to say, you experience, are subjected to, and/or are affected by the damage you do not resist.  Resisting means you do not experience, are not subjected to, and are not affected by that damage.

[WellsIDidIt]

The book uses the term suffer damage interchangeably between actual damage taken and initial damage before resistance. Example:
Slim, Rex, and Teak are all unlucky enough to be standing near a grenade when it goes off. The grenade is fragmentation, with a base Damage Code of 12P(f). Slim is standing 3 meters away when it detonates, so he is hit with a 9P(f) attack (DV 12 minus 1 per meter away). Rex stands 6 meters away and so suffers only 6P(f) damage. Teak happens to be 12 meters away from the blast point, so he is outside the grenade’s blast effect entirely.

That said, the text for Trauma Damper gives a good rundown of how it and Platelet Factories works together, which is extremely telling for how Platelet Factories are supposed to work to begin with.Trauma Damper is applied after soaking (it's applied when you're actually ticking off boxes on your monitor). Platelet Factories are applied after Trauma Damper. Therefore, it goes to reason Platelet Factories go after the soak roll as well.

[Shadowjack]

Good analysis as usual, Wells. I knew Platelet Factories definitely worked the way I said.

[Falconer]

Except that the example never brings a resistance roll into the question.

And the trauma damper has the exact same wording problem.

So once again... there's nothing in the text to CONCLUSIVELY state whether it's pre or post soak.   There's been no word from the powers that be either to state that it should work one way or another.


Don't get me wrong I use this reading as well as it makes more sense and suits my playstye better... it's only since I can't point at the RAW and make a conclusive argument I'm not going to tell other people they're doing it wrong and house ruling if they do it the other way.   I've seen it played both ways and it really is just a matter of game style.   Pink Mohawk over the top... go one way.  Trenchcoat crowd should go the other.

[Shadowjack]

Not to be too anal about this but the text seems 100% clear to me. Perhaps there is no clarification offered because they felt none was needed. Not trying to piss you off or anything but what is it about the wording that isn't clear?

[mtfeeney = Baron]

Could someone explain why the platelet factories would ever be a bad thing?  I didn't understand his example.  Taking 1 less damage and being 1 point from dead is a LOT better than being dead already, isn't it?

[Wildcard]

Could someone explain why the platelet factories would ever be a bad thing?  I didn't understand his example.  Taking 1 less damage and being 1 point from dead is a LOT better than being dead already, isn't it?

Essence value. About it, really. Strict reading of the rules and a strict GM would say that you couldn't feign death upon receiving a nearly fatal blow, so an attacker that will continue to fire upon active threats would kill you where he wouldn't just knock you out and move on.

That someone would argue to hold onto that scrap shows some piss poor planning, though.