[ZeConster]

You might want to read my clarifying edit, as I went back and realized I had been unclear.

"Excuse me if I'm unclear." isn't a clarifying edit at all, since there's nothing to clarify. You're still saying "but I don't mean Initiative Score" when at no point I said you did.

Also, I edited my previous post to respond to your second paragraph.

[Crunch]

I added an entire paragraph under that ze in which I clarified my point. To wit, why - in your reading- does Increased Reflexes automatically refer to Initiative Attribute when nothing in the text indicates that it should do so.

p 159 defines initiative and it is not the reading you would have us make for Increased Reflexes.

Increased Reflexes neither directly nor indirectly mentions the Initiative Attribute. The contextual leap you've been making for other augments (if attributes are mentioned anywhere in the textblock then any mention of initiative means initiative attribute does not apply).

If we throw away p 159 assuming that they did not mean to define the term initiative when they inserted a definition of the term initiative how do we then distinguish between where they mean initiative score and initiative attribute? In increased reflexes there are no clues as to which is meant.

At which point you jump to "so it must be initiative attribute" and I honestly don't know how you get there. You asked me how I got to initiative score and the answer is I didn't. There are insufficient contexual clues to come to any conclusion other than that they meant to use the term as they defined it.

You've several times counted results on a find/replace to prove that there are places in the book where they say initiative score, there are also places where they say initiative attribute. My reading is simply that they mean what the say. However, I'm seriously trying to understand where you're coming from and I seriously cannot currently understand how you get to a consistent reading based on the arguments you're making here.

slipped by your edit

Why can't you have +1 to initiative? Everything in the game including initative attribute is a concept.

[Xenon]

For the record I also read Initiative as Initiative (which fit everywhere since it is based on Initiative Attribute, Initiative Dice.....) When the book explicit mean something give a bonus to Initiative Score and nothing else they explicit write Initiative Score. Reading the word Initiative as Initiative Attribute would be RAI and not RAW.


So, what do we think about Aaron's post which basically mean that enhancements that are incompatible with "Augmentations" are only incompatible with bioware and cyberware - and compatible with spells, drugs and adept powers?

Augmentations that are made compatible with magic, adept powers and drugs by that definition include: Bone lacing, Bone density augmentation, Muscle replacement, Cyberlimbs, Muscle toner and Wired reflexes.

[Xenon]

The post also mean that enhancements that are not cyberware or bioware are not limited to the +4 augmentation limit (unless they explicit state that they are limited).

The reaction increase you get from improved  reflexes adept power, for example, does not mention such a limit (but drugs only give +1 and i think all the other spells and powers do have this limit so you can't really break the +4 barrier anyway i guess).

[ZeConster]

I added an entire paragraph under that ze in which I clarified my point. To wit, why - in your reading- does Increased Reflexes automatically refer to Initiative Attribute when nothing in the text indicates that it should do so.

I explained this in the post I linked to, the very post to which you responded by asking me why I (note to Xenon: also, I think italics are ugly) would think it meant the [Initiative Attribute] and not the [Initiative Score]. And considering the end of your post, you've obviously noticed the explanation, so I'm not sure why this is still in your post, since the lack of an "okay, putting that aside" before your point still gives the impression you think I'm saying you're saying something you're not saying, when I've repeatedly stated that despite what you think I'm saying, I'm not saying you're saying something you're not saying.

Why can't you have +1 to initiative? Everything in the game including initative attribute is a concept.

Because the [broader concept of Initiative] is something that encompasses [Initiative Attribute], [Initiative Dice] and [Initiative Score], and that isn't something you can just add a +1 to.

So, what do we think about Aaron's post which basically mean that enhancements that are incompatible with "Augmentations" are only incompatible with bioware and cyberware - and compatible with spells, drugs and adept powers?

That it obviously shows the rules were poorly and needlessly ambiguously written?

[Crunch]

If we use Aaron's reading (with the usual cautions, most days I find the game makes more sense if we don't listen to Aaron - YMMV) then the biggest issue is that both Muscle Toner and Muscle Replacement specify that they don't stack with other augmentations - therefore allowing in magical boosts.

However every magic stat boost I can find specifies that the augmented maximum does apply to them How do we square that with a strict reading of augmentation in the Wired Reflexes description? I frankly have no idea. It's internally inconsistent in the same way that Aaron's reading on cumulative recoil.

[Crunch]

Why can't you have +1 to initiative? Everything in the game including initative attribute is a concept.

Because the [broader concept of Initiative] is something that encompasses [Initiative Attribute], [Initiative Dice] and [Initiative Score], and that isn't something you can just add a +1 to.

Why not?

[Xenon]

You can't break +4 even if only one enhancement use the rule though. But this let us reach +4 with a combination of tech and magic.

Typing on phone atm.

[martinchaen]

Just a quick note on the contention regarding whether or not "Initiative" means "Initiative as defined on p159" or "Initiative attribute and initiative score, or something else or inbetween";

Could it be that the developers, when writing the entry for Wired Reflexes and similar gear, chose to word "initiative" because the effects of Wired Reflexes adds to BOTH the Initiative Attribute (through the increased Reaction) AND the Initiative Score (by adding Rd6 to the roll)? If so, could this explain why Reaction Enhancers specifically state that it is incompatible with "all other enhancements to Reaction, including wired reflexes" [unless wireless enabled).

In a similar vein, Cram and Jazz both affect the Initiative Attribute by adding +1 REA, while also enhancing the Initiative Score by adding +1 and +2d6 respectively; contrary to these, Kamikaze only adds +2d6 to the Initiative Score, and so would seemingly be compatible with Reaction Enhancers given the RAW reading of both. Novacoke and Psyche, on the other hand, only affect Initiative Attribute by enhancing Intuition, and so again would likely be compatible with Reaction Enhancers specifically.

Personally, I think it would be beneficial to take a look at the effects of the 'ware, magic, and drugs discussed so far, rather than get further bogged down in semantics. Ultimately, we won't know for sure until official rulings are given, but if y'all want to argue till you're blue in the fac... erm, fingers... go right on ahead


[EDIT]:
Looking at other pieces of augmentation, at least, it seems to me that the RAI is to exclude augmentations from interacting with each other, as per Muscle Replacements:
" It cannot be combined with other augmentations to the muscles, including muscle augmentation or muscle toner bioware"
Again, the effects are incompatible with each other, and the fluff text doesn't seem to matter much. It's this inconsistency in terminology that certainly breeds the kind of dissenting opinions evident in this thread, so it would be HUGELY beneficial to get a word from the Devs on what their intent was. *cough* HINT! *coughs* Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me.

[Xenon]

Yes, I too think that wired reflexes is incompatible with Initiative is because it add Initiative Dice (and maybe also because reaction might add initiative attribute; depending on if the character is in physical, astral or in matrix VR).

Reaction enhancers are compatible with enhancements to initiative because it does not give an enhancement to initiative (only to reaction which might or might not be used to calculate initiative attribute which is part of initiative). You can't stack it with other reaction enhancements for the purpose of increasing your initiative and you can't stack it with other reaction enhancements for the purpose of increasing your pilot or defense pool.

But just because it is incompatible with enhancements to reaction does not mean you can't use cram. Just that cram does not stack the reaction part of the drug since you already got reaction enhancers. You still get the initiative enhancement (in this case initiative dice) even if you have reaction enhancers cyberware.

You can also stack Cram and Jazz to get +1 reaction from both (unless you have reaction enhancers or synaptic boosters which are the only two reaction related buffs that are incompatible with drugs). If you combine both with improved reflexes 3 you will get +5 to reaction. Improved reflexes is not an augmentation (cyberware or bioware) and non of them explicit state that they can't augment attributes beyond the normal +4 limit that augmentations (cyberware and bioware) are slaved under. You can also stack the +1d6 initiative dice from cram, +2d6 initiative dice from jazz with the +3d6 initiative dice from improved reflexes 3 since drugs are not technological nor magical. The reaction enhancement from all three stack at initiative level as well since they are compatible to initiative enhancements. You are looking at an initiative of natural reaction + natural intuition + 1d6 plus cram which give +1d6+1 plus jazz which give +2d6+1 plus improved reaction which give +3d6+3 for a total of natural reaction + 5 + natural intuition + 7d6 (but initiative dice is capped at 5d6 so you will lose 2d6 there).

(and i am sure there are some rules that make it a Bad Idea(tm) to combine and mix drugs when it comes to stuff like addiction and side effects).

[MaxKojote]

(and i am sure there are some rules that make it a Bad Idea(tm) to combine and mix drugs when it comes to stuff like addiction and side effects).

Too much of anything can hurt you, or even kill you. Whenever you take a substance while you’re already on that substance or one that has a shared effect (like the way cram and novacoke both affect Reaction), you take Stun damage with a DV equal to the sum of the Addiction Ratings of the overlapping drugs, resisted with Body + Willpower.

I imagine the fact that Cram and Jazz grant bonus initiative dice would qualify, if not the fact they grant Reaction. That would be an instant 12S to resist, plus the other usual addiction stuff.

[martinchaen]

I thought Augmented Max applied to all enhancements, not just 'ware?

Also, the example given by Xenon is why I think it's ludicrous that some things stack the way the rules are written, and some don't.

So mages are in luck, because magic stacks with drugs, but vatjobs with 285k worth of bioware can't become faster by taking a 10 nuyen dose of cram and improve his speed further? Come on, that's just ridiculous... There's no way that's RAI, and if it is, you can be sure I'll houserule it in games I GM.

[Crunch]

I thought Augmented Max applied to all enhancements, not just 'ware?

We all did. The problem is that in Aaron's reading of Wired Reflexes Augmentation refers only to cybernetic augmentation. Since it would be REALLY bad practice to use the same terminology to mean different things in different places without indicating the difference we have to call into doubt the Augmented Maximum for magic enhancements unless the enhancement itself calls out the Augmented Maximum. It's an (I presume) unintended consequence of his reading.

[martinchaen]

Who's Aaron, one of the Devs? And we don't "have" to anything, until official errata is released. I do agree on the poor choice of/conflicting terminology used throughout the book, as they certainly could have been a lot clearer.

Link to the above reading by Aaron?

[Crunch]

It's in the FAQ thread. Aaron's a freelancer, and his answers aren't official. The "have to" meant "If we accept the reading then we have to." Aaron's a really nice guy and answers a lot of questions. I'm not a fan of that reading and hope it doesn't make it into the FAQ, but that was the basis for the discussion about augmented max.