Update 2.1 - Non-Lethal wording

The changes to the wording of the Non-Lethal Trait in update 2.1 allow unintended interpretations:

No matter the ammunition type this weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program uses, it doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, or doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit.​

If you ignore the first part of the "or" clause, it reads:

"No matter the ammunition type this weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program uses, it... doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit."​

The unintended interpretation is that E/M Ammo, being Non-Lethal, "doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit". This is clearly nonsense.

The previous wording of the Trait was simply a definition of what a Non-Lethal weapon was and has been clumsily altered. The changes should have been in addition to the existing definition.

We propose it should read as follows:

This weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program loads an ammunition type that either doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, or doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit (or both).
No matter the ammunition type this weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program uses, it can never cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, even if a Skill, rule or MOD adds or combines other ammunition types, the Non-Lethal Trait always take precedence.​

This keeps the original wording as a definition of what it is, and the 2.1 changes are moved to the second sentence and still alter the rule as intended.

 

To account for "if a Skill, rule or MOD adds or combines other ammunition types", I believe. For example, a Flash Pulse gains Shock ammo:

 

Sorry, I mis-read "unintended" as "intended"!

The unintended interpretation is that E/M Ammo, being Non-Lethal, "doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit".

Also, let's be honest, the current wording is just horrible anyway!

 

Well, ChatGPT understands the problem, so maybe this helps: https://chat.openai.com/share/7cfa1c1a-848b-4792-9c5c-4d1a32c24490

Both of ChatGPTs suggested fixes demonstrate the unintended result.

 

Here is a statement: "I go to town by car or bus". You can split that into two separate statements:

1. "I go to town by car"
2. "I go to town by bus"​

This is the current 2.1 text:

"No matter the ammunition type this weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program uses, it doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, or doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit."
​

If we split that into two statements following my example:

1. "No matter the ammunition type this weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program uses, it doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute."

2. "No matter the ammunition type this weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program uses, it doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit."​

The first statement is perfectly fine, both in terms of English grammar and the rules; non-lethal weapons do not "cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute" and never have.

The second statement is fine in terms of English grammar but reads as a false statement in game terms; some ammunition types do "require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit."

I think the problem is the "No matter the ammunition type" at the start. It reads as an instruction to disregard the ammunition type.

The original text was narratively describing the ammunition type:

"This weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program loads an ammunition type that doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, or doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit."​

It's saying that non-lethal ammunition could be something that doesn’t cause Wounds (like E/M) or something that doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit (like Smoke). It wasn't an actual rule so there was no risk of confusion.

 

Success. Great. You agree that the second part reads as I have decribed. We've successfully deconstructed the conjunction into two statements.

And we agree that, logically, sometimes 1. is true and sometimes 2. is true. One or the other must be true. So, let's move past the 'or', which everyone seems to be hung up on.

To continue the example:

"I go to town by car or helicopter"

1. I go to town by car
2. I go to town by helicopter

2 is false. That never happens. And THAT is the problem with the statement:

"No matter the ammunition type this weapon... uses, it doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit."​

How can you read that statement, which is straight from the rules and not see the problem? It can never be true. Having the Non-lethal Trait does not mean you can ignore the ammunition type when deciding if a Saving Roll is needed! In fact, exactly as you have described, the ammunition type specifies whether a Saving Roll is needed and what kind!

The fact we're even dicussing this just shows how badly written the rule is. Is that, in itself, not a reason for improvement?

 

The rule says "No matter the ammunition type" and you just explained the second statement is true depending on the ammunition type i.e. Smoke vs E/M.

Maybe if I reword it like this:

This weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, no matter the ammunition type, or doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit.​

Which gives us, two statements:

1. This weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program doesn’t cause the target to lose points of its Wounds/STR Attribute, no matter the ammunition type.

OR

2. This weapon, piece of Equipment or Hacking Program doesn’t require the target to make a Saving Roll when hit

I'm sorry it took me so long to come up with this alternative wording. It demonstrates the problem much more clearly. However, we might have got their together with more of an open mind.