Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:08:52 GMT
This appears a debated topic at the moment, and should probably be considered
separately from that other thread. I'll throw in the rule facts I know.

SRII Regeneration
It says nothing either way about how it works in conjunction with cyberware,
except for the obvious difficulty of installing cyberware. The big question
would most likely be wether paying essence for cyberware makes the aura/
regeneration/body think the cyberware should be there, and not reject it.

SR Companion Regeneration (Shapeshifters)
This deals specifically in how regeneration is handled for shapeshifters.
There's three 'facts' about Companion regeneration.
A shapeshifter has regeneration in animal form, not in human.
A shapeshifter may have cyberware in human form.
A shapeshifter shifting to animal form will expel cyber installed in the human
form.

The question is probably wether it's shifting to animal form itself, or
regeneration which kicks in in animal form, that expels the cyber.
(or both!)

The Shapechange spell does not specify that cyberware is ejected when the
target is changed, which is relevant if you accept that shapechange is similar
to shapeshifting.

It seems like a fairly logical conclusion that it is the regeneration that
expels the cyber.

There is a number of obvious holes or alternatives here, though.
#1: Shapechange is not necessarily like shapeshifting, and besides, it doesn't
mention cyberware... just like regeration doesn't mention cyber. So it might
expel cyber as well, making it the act of shifting that expels it, not
the regeneration.
#2: ...if you accept that shapechange is similar to shapeshifting.
#3: It might be shapechanging that ejects the cyber and not regeneration,
and thus cyber, once in a regenerating body, might be accepted.
#4: Then again, it might be both shapechanging *and* regenerating that ejects
cyber.
#5: Fairly logical, in this case, is not strictly logical.
(Darn, I shoulda made a logical map of that one. I'm not so sure if it's not
strictly logical after all, considering that the assumptions might or might not
be correct. It is certainly not a teutology.).

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 2
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 01:01:14 +0100
At 11-Mai-98 wrote Rune Fostervoll:


>There is a number of obvious holes or alternatives here, though.
>#1: Shapechange is not necessarily like shapeshifting, and besides, it
doesn't
>mention cyberware... just like regeration doesn't mention cyber. So it might
>expel cyber as well, making it the act of shifting that expels it, not
>the regeneration.
>#2: ...if you accept that shapechange is similar to shapeshifting.
>#3: It might be shapechanging that ejects the cyber and not regeneration,
>and thus cyber, once in a regenerating body, might be accepted.
>#4: Then again, it might be both shapechanging *and* regenerating that ejects
>cyber.
>#5: Fairly logical, in this case, is not strictly logical.
>(Darn, I shoulda made a logical map of that one. I'm not so sure if it's not
>strictly logical after all, considering that the assumptions might or might
>not
>be correct. It is certainly not a teutology.).

The regenerating drives the cyber out because regen tries to bring the
physical body
back in snyc with the in the astral template defined natural state aka the
unaltered
body.

Shifting doesn`t drives out the cyber per see, but because of the altering of
the shape
the cyberware doesn`t matches the new shape and so hurts the body.
the shapeshift spell uses a transformational effect to alter every body part
including
the implants, so it doesn`t drives implants out, but since the shape of the
cyber is altered it fails to functions as long as the spell is sustained.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:28:51 +1000
Rune Fostervoll writes:
>SRII Regeneration
>It says nothing either way about how it works in conjunction with
cyberware,
>except for the obvious difficulty of installing cyberware. The big question
>would most likely be wether paying essence for cyberware makes the aura/
>regeneration/body think the cyberware should be there, and not reject it.


Here's the problem with cyberware and regeneration:

Obviously, the surgery would have to be done with instruments that the
'patient' is allergic to. This is necessary to prevent the wounds from
regenerating almost instantly (a drug which inhibited regeneration could be
stipulated, but it's really irrelevant).

Also, the cyber _itself_ would have to made out of or coated with a
substance the patient is allergic to. This is because the flesh would
constantly be trying to replace the cyberware with flesh/brain
matter/whatever should be there. It wouldn't grow around it, the way normal
healing would work.

At this point, you could have cyber in a person with regeneration. Here's
the final catch: The 'patient' would now be constantly in contact with a
substance that they are allergic to. Work out the results yourself.

Conclusion: Regeneration prohibits successful implantation and use of
cyberware, except possibly as a vicious torture method.

Anyone who supports regeneration with cyberware is invited to dispute my
reasoning. Otherwise, shut the frag up. :)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 4
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 01:46:00 +0100
At 12-Mai-98 wrote Robert Watkins:


>Anyone who supports regeneration with cyberware is invited to dispute my
>reasoning. Otherwise, shut the frag up. :)

I don`t support it but it can be done by altering the astral template to
incorporate the cyberware in its patterns.
But the end effect isn`t much better....similiar to Cybermancy.
Slow and pain full death.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:48:49 -0400
At 10:08 PM 5/11/98 GMT, you wrote:
>This appears a debated topic at the moment, and should probably be considered
>separately from that other thread. I'll throw in the rule facts I know.
>
>SRII Regeneration
>It says nothing either way about how it works in conjunction with cyberware,
>except for the obvious difficulty of installing cyberware. The big question
>would most likely be wether paying essence for cyberware makes the aura/
>regeneration/body think the cyberware should be there, and not reject it.
>

I think the classic example here is the mage with cyber-eyes. By paying
the essence cost, the eyes become part of you and integrated. They
function as part of your body, and can be used for LOS in spellcasting.
Hence, the cyberware is an integral part of the body, even to the extreme
level that it will mesh with magic use. These are canon rules.

Therefore, it seems a logical extension that by paying the essence cost and
thereby integrating cyberware the body would no longer reject or regenerate
the cyberware out as the cyberware is treated as a natural part. This is
IMO, and others may disagree.

Another point: regeneration is essentially accelerate healing and normal
healing doesn't reject cyberware or bioware (unless it is cheap
second/hand) so why should regeneration? Of course, installation surgery
is still quite tricky.

As for shapeshifting, it isn't clear that the same argument would
necessarily apply. It is a big step from accepting a foreign object as
part of the body to magically transforming that foreign object into another
form along with the body. Additionally, shapeshifters with cyberware seem
a bit ... I hate the m. word because it is thrown around here WAY too
quickly, ... overpowered.

--DT
Message no. 6
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:55:40 +1000
> Another point: regeneration is essentially accelerate healing and normal
> healing doesn't reject cyberware or bioware (unless it is cheap
> second/hand) so why should regeneration? Of course, installation surgery
> is still quite tricky.

I`m really unclear on the FASA rules for regeneration, never having been
interested in playing a character with it - does regeneration grow back
missing body parts, or just heal the body faster? That`s the important
question - if the former, then cyber wouldn`t have much chance of
working. If the latter, cyber would be fine. All IMHO, of course.

Lady Jestyr

- I'm in touch with my Inner Klingon... -
| Elle Holmes | jestyr@**********.com | http://jestyr.home.ml.org |
| Shadowrun Webring Ringmaster | GeoCities Leader | RPGA Reviewer |
Message no. 7
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:54:54 -0700
----------
> From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
> Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 4:48 PM
>
> Another point: regeneration is essentially accelerate healing and normal
> healing doesn't reject cyberware or bioware (unless it is cheap
> second/hand) so why should regeneration? Of course, installation surgery
> is still quite tricky.
>

AFAIK: Regeneration will regrow missing limbs, and normal healing does not
do that. QED: Regeneration is not normal healing.
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:05:54 +1000
David Thompson writes:
>I think the classic example here is the mage with cyber-eyes. By paying
>the essence cost, the eyes become part of you and integrated. They
>function as part of your body, and can be used for LOS in spellcasting.
>Hence, the cyberware is an integral part of the body, even to the extreme
>level that it will mesh with magic use. These are canon rules.


But it's the _normal_ healing process which integrates the cyber-eyes in.
The mage doesn't just go under the knife, lose his eyes, and replaces it
with cyber-eyes. It's the whole healing process involved which causes the
Essence loss, as his body _adjusts_ to having less than it used to, and
adjusts to the invasiveness of the procedure. Regeneration isn't about
adjustment: if a normal person looses an eye, skin will grow over it
eventually, sealing the socket. If a regenerater looses an eye, they'll
regrow the eye. Bit hard to do if there's already a mechanical replacement.

>Another point: regeneration is essentially accelerate healing and normal
>healing doesn't reject cyberware or bioware (unless it is cheap
>second/hand) so why should regeneration? Of course, installation surgery
>is still quite tricky.


See above point: Regeneration is _not_ just accelerated healing.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 9
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:28:54 -0400
Upon re-reading the rules, it states clearly on page 38 of the Companion
that "Their regenerative powers cause shapeshifters' bodies to reject all
cyberware as soon as they shift to animal form." I guess the issue is settled
regeneration _does_ cause cyberware rejection.

--DT
Message no. 10
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:42:28 -0400
|> From: Lady Jestyr
|> Sent: May 11, 1998 7:56 PM
|> Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration

|> I`m really unclear on the FASA rules for regeneration, never having been
|> interested in playing a character with it - does regeneration grow back
|> missing body parts, or just heal the body faster? That`s the important
|> question - if the former, then cyber wouldn`t have much chance of
|> working. If the latter, cyber would be fine. All IMHO, of course.

This would seem to be the crux of the argument; is Regenration [in SR]
merely rapid healing, or does it extend to rull regeneration of the body?
Someone posted the description given in one of the books and unfortunately
this is not specified, or if it is I did not notice.

Going with the theory that they would have called it super-rapid healing
if this is what they intended I'd say that Regenerate does indeed heal the
body back to full, unless the brain, the spine, or both are destroyed. Even
to the point of regrowing lost body parts. Ergo, if my reasoning has been
correct, implanting cyber-wear, especially limbs, would be problematical.

Having written the above I should point out that it is my belief that
with a healing spell designed for it [even though SR doesn't have yet] it
should - at least theoreticaly - be possible to install cyber-wear as part
of a magical ritual.

-M
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
Message no. 11
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:37:44 +0000
I've seen a number of posts/opinions on the subject. Interestingly
enough, almost all of them were claimed with a certainty equalling
that of the Word of God, with no room for discussion. That is almost
more interesting than whatever was said.
(Kudos to Freyson and Jestyr, the only exceptions, IIRC.. and DT, the
only one rightfully using the WoG.:).

DT commented that it says in the SRC that it is the regeneration that
causes the cyberware to be rejected. That is, of course, true.
(SRC, p. 38). He also said, end of discussion. Not quite true, but
close. :)

That implies that paying essence for something does not make it
part of the aura, whatever implications that has. But then what about
why you can cast spells through cybereyes? Why one thing and not the
other?

Someone (Barbie?) said shapechange spells change the cyber's shape,
but it ceases to work. That cannot be 100% correct - much cyber works
simply by existing.(Bone lacing, e.g.) Some cyber would lead to the
user's death if it ceased to work.. not that that's an argument
against it ceasing to work.

As an aside, even stuff with weakness/allergy will be rejected, as it
is regenerated as well, only slower. (1 box per minute, SRC P. 38).

Another commented regeneration doesn't replace mass... why not?
There's many examples of 'something from nothing' throughout SR...
or, to be more correct, something from astral. Shifters are always
dual.

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 12
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 07:16:47 -0600
David Thompson wrote:
/
/ Upon re-reading the rules, it states clearly on page 38 of the Companion
/ that "Their regenerative powers cause shapeshifters' bodies to reject all
/ cyberware as soon as they shift to animal form." I guess the issue is settled
/ regeneration _does_ cause cyberware rejection.

Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both forms,
or only thier animal form?

-David
--
Of all the pleasures of life, I think I like nit-picking the best!
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 13
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:40:49 +0200
>DT commented that it says in the SRC that it is the regeneration that
>causes the cyberware to be rejected. That is, of course, true.
>(SRC, p. 38). He also said, end of discussion. Not quite true, but
>close. :)

I don't interpret it like this. IMO, regeneration rejects cyberware that
has not been installed before the critter (or guy) gains this power.
In the case of a shapeshifter, nothing is changed since it has the
regenration power since its birth. For a vampire, I would state that he
keeps his cyberware when he becomes a vampire but has no possibility to
implant new ones.
IMO, cyberware does affect your aura. At the time you lose essence, it
becomes an integrated part of you (IMO since there's no clear quote on this
subject in SR). The reason why you can't get cyberware after having become
regenerative is:
1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much too powerful.
2/ I would state (but it's only MO) that the aura freezes in some way. I
see regeneration power as the ability for the corpse to evolve into the
exact appearance of aura. Thus, since the aura is stabilized (otherwise the
power couldn't work), you can't accept the alteration from cyberware.

>That implies that paying essence for something does not make it
>part of the aura, whatever implications that has. But then what about
>why you can cast spells through cybereyes? Why one thing and not the
>other?

See above.

>Someone (Barbie?) said shapechange spells change the cyber's shape,
>but it ceases to work. That cannot be 100% correct - much cyber works
>simply by existing.(Bone lacing, e.g.) Some cyber would lead to the
>user's death if it ceased to work.. not that that's an argument
>against it ceasing to work.

Actualy, I don't see why it shouldn't work... If the spell is able to alter
your flesh, it can alter your cyberware BECAUSE you paid essence for it.
So, if a sammy with wired reflexes 2 is transformed into a tiger, he still
has his wired reflexes. However, I would state that these wired reflexes
replace the initiative bonus dices from tiger form.

>As an aside, even stuff with weakness/allergy will be rejected, as it
>is regenerated as well, only slower. (1 box per minute, SRC P. 38).

Same as above. If the allergy is a part of his aura, he keeps it. If not,
it is rejected.

>Another commented regeneration doesn't replace mass... why not?
>There's many examples of 'something from nothing' throughout SR...
>or, to be more correct, something from astral. Shifters are always
>dual.

Actualy, you have to admit that regeneration replaces mass otherwise, a guy
blown by a shotgun couldn't heal because he wouldn't be able to replace all
the flesh that has gone.

- Cobra.
Message no. 14
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:32:35 -0600
Cobra wrote:
/
/ 1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much too powerful.

Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
until the patient's regeneration failed.

Here's my take on the subject.

Cyberware could theoretically be installed in a person/creature with
regeneration. As I stated above the actual instalation is possible,
difficult, but possible.

Once it's installed I don't think that regeneration would reject the
cyberware. Cyberware doesn't cause damage to it's owner. The
regeneration power is only effective against damage caused to the
person/creature.

After installation the regeneration power would heal the damage
caused by the surgery, but it shouldn't reject the cyberware.

In the case of a shapeshifter shifting from one form to another I
believe that cyberware would be rejected because it's unaffected by
the ability that allows a shifter to shift shape. So when a shifter
shifts shape (say that three times fast ;) the configuration of the
cyberware doesn't change. It's like having a square peg in a square
hole and turning the square hole into a round hole. When the shifter
shifts shape the cyberware is "static" and causes damage as the flesh
that surrounds it changes position. Since the cyberware is no longer
where it's supposed to be, it's treated as a foreign object and is
rejected as the shifter regenerates the damage.

Just my two cents.

-D
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 15
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:58:58 -0500
----------
> From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
>
> Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both
forms,
> or only thier animal form?

Both forms, actually. In the Companion, its weaker in human form, but its
still there.
Message no. 16
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:05:59 -0400
At 07:16 AM 5/12/98 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
>David Thompson wrote:
>/
>/ Upon re-reading the rules, it states clearly on page 38 of the Companion
>/ that "Their regenerative powers cause shapeshifters' bodies to reject all
>/ cyberware as soon as they shift to animal form." I guess the issue is
settled
>/ regeneration _does_ cause cyberware rejection.
>
>Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both forms,
>or only thier animal form?

PC shapeshifters, which is what the Companion was talking about, have
regeneration only in their animal form.

Seems pretty cut and dried now, doesn't it?

--DT
Message no. 17
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:12:32 -0400
At 03:40 PM 5/12/98 +0200, Cobra wrote:
>>DT commented that it says in the SRC that it is the regeneration that
>>causes the cyberware to be rejected. That is, of course, true.
>>(SRC, p. 38). He also said, end of discussion. Not quite true, but
>>close. :)
>
>I don't interpret it like this. IMO, regeneration rejects cyberware that
>has not been installed before the critter (or guy) gains this power.
>In the case of a shapeshifter, nothing is changed since it has the
>regenration power since its birth. For a vampire, I would state that he
>keeps his cyberware when he becomes a vampire but has no possibility to
>implant new ones.
>IMO, cyberware does affect your aura. At the time you lose essence, it
>becomes an integrated part of you (IMO since there's no clear quote on this
>subject in SR). The reason why you can't get cyberware after having become
>regenerative is:
>1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much too powerful.
>2/ I would state (but it's only MO) that the aura freezes in some way. I
>see regeneration power as the ability for the corpse to evolve into the
>exact appearance of aura. Thus, since the aura is stabilized (otherwise the
>power couldn't work), you can't accept the alteration from cyberware.

I buy all that, especially about essence loss and cyberware, and it
becoming integrated into your aura. The question then is: if a
shapeshifter is in human form, and has cyberware installed (and it is clear
this is possible), do they not lose any essence. When they transform back
to animal form, it is canon that the cyberware is rejected. Do they lose
essence and get it back, or never lose the essence, or lose the essence and
reject the cyberware anyway.

If they don't lose essence, then you can install as much cyber as you want
in a shifter, and they won't die, so that seems like a very bad solution.

Regaining essence is always a tricky issue, and it seems clear that FASA
has stated it isn't possible.

That leaves that they lose essence, and reject the cyberware anyway. That
would invalidate our idea that essence loss integrates the modifications
into the aura, thereby preventing regeneration from expelling anything.

Hmm, we aren't left with much.

--DT
Message no. 18
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:16:02 -0400
>In the case of a shapeshifter shifting from one form to another I
>believe that cyberware would be rejected because it's unaffected by
>the ability that allows a shifter to shift shape. So when a shifter
>shifts shape (say that three times fast ;) the configuration of the
>cyberware doesn't change. It's like having a square peg in a square
>hole and turning the square hole into a round hole. When the shifter
>shifts shape the cyberware is "static" and causes damage as the flesh
>that surrounds it changes position. Since the cyberware is no longer
>where it's supposed to be, it's treated as a foreign object and is
>rejected as the shifter regenerates the damage.
>
>Just my two cents.

I like that, except that the disparity between shapechange spell and
shapeshifting isn't addressed. I guess if you just say they work
differently, this becomes a good conclusion, but not necessarily the only one.

--DT
Message no. 19
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:41:27 -0700
----------
> From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 6:16 AM
>
> David Thompson wrote:
> /
> / Upon re-reading the rules, it states clearly on page 38 of the
Companion
> / that "Their regenerative powers cause shapeshifters' bodies to reject
all
> / cyberware as soon as they shift to animal form." I guess the issue is
settled
> / regeneration _does_ cause cyberware rejection.
>
> Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both forms,
> or only thier animal form?

I believe the original critter could, but when they put out the PC race in
the companion, they said only in their animal form.
Message no. 20
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:18:41 -0700
----------
> From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:32 AM
>
> Cobra wrote:
> /
> / 1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much too
powerful.
>
> Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
> until the patient's regeneration failed.
>

Typically that means that they are dead. =) YMMV, though. In your model
of regeneration, it could be that after taking a certain amount of trauma,
the body's ability to regenerate fails... a sort of lack of momentum thing.
IMHO, though, even if it was weakened enough to keep a wound open and
stick a piece of cyberware in there, it would then make a forcible attempt
to try and close up the wound once the energy was restored and try to
remove the offending object from the body, much like I imagine it would do
if it got shot. The other possibility is that once the regeneration
ability is battered that much, it just ceases to function. No more
regeneration. So it ceases to work. The possibility I did like, which I
don't remember the original source of it, is that if you received the
cyberware before you had the ability to regenerate (like a human before
contracting HMHVV), it doesn't try to regenerate the missing bits.

> Here's my take on the subject.
>
> Cyberware could theoretically be installed in a person/creature with
> regeneration. As I stated above the actual instalation is possible,
> difficult, but possible.
>
> Once it's installed I don't think that regeneration would reject the
> cyberware. Cyberware doesn't cause damage to it's owner. The
> regeneration power is only effective against damage caused to the
> person/creature.
>

Cyberware in and of itself does not cause damage. The surgery does. And
as long as there's a functional regeneration in the creature, it will try
to fully restore its body to the state it was in prior to the surgery.

> After installation the regeneration power would heal the damage
> caused by the surgery, but it shouldn't reject the cyberware.
>

How about this model:

You're a creature with regeneration. You decide to get cybereyes. You
have your current eyes removed, mechanical ones put it. Your supernatural
ability of regeneration then will try to regrow the eyes that were
"damaged" by the surgical removal.

One thing does occur to me as I write this, which does go a bit to support
your idea a bit.

Were there a way to forcibly stop the regeneration of a missing bit, I
suppose it would be possible to implant cyberware. In the current SR
universe, though, such a thing does not exist. Even creatures with
alergies to a substance can still regenerate damage from an object made of
that substance. And it doesn't slow down their regneration, really. It
just causes a bit more damage. A chemical or what not that does counteract
a regener's ability to regen would be a fairly powerful item in a campaign,
I'd think. You're free to have it, but SR has yet to impliment it AFAIK.
Also, I'd think that extensive use of this anti-regen compound would hinder
a shifter's overall ability to regenerate damage. Perhaps modify the
regeneration rate by each point of essence/b.i. a regener has. Also, an
increase in the number needed to roll to determine Death By Heinous Damage.
Message no. 21
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:26:10 -0400
At 10:58 AM 5/12/98 -0500, Nexx wrote:
>----------
>> From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
>>
>> Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both
>forms,
>> or only thier animal form?
>
>Both forms, actually. In the Companion, its weaker in human form, but its
>still there.

I think you must be mistaking the slower regeneration of physical drain or
of shapeshifting into animal form having been already damaged.

On page 37 of the Companion it states:
"Note that shapeshifter player characters lose all special regenerative
powers in human form. A shapeshifter who takes damage in human form and
remains in human form heals according to the standard Shadowrun rules."

--DT
Message no. 22
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:20:00 -0600
Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman wrote:
/
/ ----------
/ > From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
/ > To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
/ > Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
/ > Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:32 AM
/ >
/ > Cobra wrote:
/ > /
/ > / 1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much too
/ powerful.
/ >
/ > Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
/ > until the patient's regeneration failed.
/
/ Typically that means that they are dead. =) YMMV, though.

Regeneration can fail if the person takes a Deadly wound. A Deadly
wound does not equal death.

In the controlled environment of a hospital it is possible to do
enough "damage" to a person to kill him while keeping him alive using
machines to take the place of organ functions. It might also be
possible in SR to actively lower the temperature of a patient to a
point where the cells "suspend" their activitity, thus preventing
regeneration during surgery.

I can think of many other ways to work around the regeneration power
to perform surgery on someone, from using drugs to repress the power,
to using magic.

Given the options available in SR I believe that it would be possible to
perform surgery on a patient with regeneration.

/ IMHO, though, even if it was weakened enough to keep a wound open and
/ stick a piece of cyberware in there, it would then make a forcible attempt
/ to try and close up the wound once the energy was restored and try to
/ remove the offending object from the body, much like I imagine it would do
/ if it got shot.

Why would a regenerator reject something that a normal person
wouldn't? Today we can make implants that the human body will
accept: titanium hip ball/socket joints, plastic knees, pace makers,
steel pins and screws used to hold shattered bones together, etc.
The cyberware of SR meets the same conditions. They are made of
materials that a person's immune system will not recognize as a
foreign object and will blithly ignore.

So, you perform the surgery using some method to circumnavigate the
regenerative power of the patient. You implant the cyberware. You
return the person to normal and let the regeneration power kick in.

The person's surgical "wounds" heal. The implants are not recognized
as foreign objects, and are not rejected, and are accepted as part of
the body.

/ How about this model:
/
/ You're a creature with regeneration. You decide to get cybereyes. You
/ have your current eyes removed, mechanical ones put it. Your supernatural
/ ability of regeneration then will try to regrow the eyes that were
/ "damaged" by the surgical removal.

Why? I'm serious. Where in the description of the power does it say
that the power will allow the person with it to regrow lost body
parts?

I know in good old AD$D the spell Regeneration was quite clear on the
matter. But in SR that isn't the case. And I don't feel that just
because the power is named Regeneration that you can go by the
definition in the dictionary. SR has a spell called Sleep that does
nothing of the sort, instead causing stun damage to the target. The
Name does not equal the power in SR.

-DB-the-squaring-of-the-circle-GM
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 23
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:22:00 -0600
David Thompson wrote:
/
/ >In the case of a shapeshifter shifting from one form to another I
/ >believe that cyberware would be rejected because it's unaffected by
/ >the ability that allows a shifter to shift shape. So when a shifter
/ >shifts shape (say that three times fast ;) the configuration of the
/ >cyberware doesn't change. It's like having a square peg in a square
/ >hole and turning the square hole into a round hole. When the shifter
/ >shifts shape the cyberware is "static" and causes damage as the flesh
/ >that surrounds it changes position. Since the cyberware is no longer
/ >where it's supposed to be, it's treated as a foreign object and is
/ >rejected as the shifter regenerates the damage.
/ >
/ >Just my two cents.
/
/ I like that, except that the disparity between shapechange spell and
/ shapeshifting isn't addressed. I guess if you just say they work
/ differently, this becomes a good conclusion, but not necessarily the only one.

Definitely not the only one, just one among many :)

-DB
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 24
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:47:45 -0500
----------
> From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
> I think you must be mistaking the slower regeneration of physical drain
or
> of shapeshifting into animal form having been already damaged.

I was. I just remembered what I was thinking about. I thought they had
the smaller regeneration abilities, but once I saw your post, I remembered
they healed at the slower rate damage taken in human form when they shift
to animal form. My Mistake (TM).

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars, PML FAQ Cop
aka Ellegon
ICQ 8108180 AIM: Nexx3
King Kong Died for your sins
--------[Geek Code Block]-----------
GED/GSS d- s++:+ a-- C++ W w+ PS+.5 PE- Y+ t+
5+ X+ R*+.5 !tv+ b+.5 DI+ D- G e h !r-- !y+
-------[End Geek Code Block]-------
Message no. 25
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:40:59 -0500
>
> Why would a regenerator reject something that a normal person
> wouldn't? Today we can make implants that the human body will
> accept: titanium hip ball/socket joints, plastic knees, pace makers,
> steel pins and screws used to hold shattered bones together, etc.
> The cyberware of SR meets the same conditions. They are made of
> materials that a person's immune system will not recognize as a
> foreign object and will blithly ignore.
>
> So, you perform the surgery using some method to circumnavigate the
> regenerative power of the patient. You implant the cyberware. You
> return the person to normal and let the regeneration power kick in.
>
> The person's surgical "wounds" heal. The implants are not recognized
> as foreign objects, and are not rejected, and are accepted as part of
> the body.
>
> / How about this model:
> /
> / You're a creature with regeneration. You decide to get cybereyes. You
> / have your current eyes removed, mechanical ones put it. Your supernatural
> / ability of regeneration then will try to regrow the eyes that were
> / "damaged" by the surgical removal.
>
> Why? I'm serious. Where in the description of the power does it say
> that the power will allow the person with it to regrow lost body
> parts?
>
I've been staying out of this argument, but I suppose I'll comment.
Ultimately, I don't let have shapers or vampires have cyberware for game
balance. They are powerful enough and there is no direct drawback for them
unless they are also magicians. But I digress....
I interpret regeneration (the power) to be based on the astral template
(true self), of the shapeshifter. This is how it knows to reject cyberware.
No matter what the body says, the template is wrong.
Just like today, some people's systems are more sensitive then others.
Well basically in my world it goes like this.....mundanes->magic active->
regenerative creates.
This is all IMHO of course. :)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 26
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 21:46:34 +0100
David Buehrer said on 7:16/12 May 98...

> Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both forms,
> or only thier animal form?

I thought that was adequately answered by the previous posts already...
Shapeshifters from SRII have regeneration power without a note saying it's
only in animal form, while the rules for PC shapeshifters from the
Companion specifically state they only get regen in animal form.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
De ene ramp is de andere waard.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 27
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:59:44 -0600
Gurth wrote:
/
/ David Buehrer said on 7:16/12 May 98...
/
/ > Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both forms,
/ > or only thier animal form?
/
/ I thought that was adequately answered by the previous posts already...

Sorry, I wasn't reading them that closely.

-David
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 28
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:17:35 -0400
Okay, time to step sideways on this cyberware-regeneration debate.

As several individuals have noted (David comes to mind), it should be
theoretically possible to implant cyberware into a regenerating individual.
You should be able to keep the body open long enough, using various means,
for invasive procedures and most, if not all cyberware is certainly
hypo-allergenic.

Using purely this argument, it is possible for regenerating individuals to
have cybernetics.

But we forget that SR is an Awakened world. There is something to be said
about the integrity and pattern of the aura.

Some have argued, even recently with the "Can shapeshifter's have heart
attacks/cancer?" debate a few weeks ago, that shapeshifters and
regeneration has something to do with the aura's pattern. That big magical
sign that says "Hi, I'm Bob and this is me."

Cyberware disrupts or alters that pattern. Cybernetics creates a fuzziness
or darkening in extreme cases to the aura (I believe these descriptions are
found in Awakenings). So the aura pattern is not the same as the original.
The big magical sign now reads "Hi Im Bob an ths is me." It means the
same thing, enough so that it is clear they are nearly the same. But they
are also clearly *different.*

Now if the aura pattern is the "guide" on how to regenerate properly, or
how to change from one form to the next for shapeshifters, what happens
when that aura is disrupted or altered in some way?

It is possible that the regeneration/shape shifting power goes on the blink
and no longer works anymore because of the aura's disruption. A shifter in
human form would be trapped that way. This flesh-hurling ninja loses his
regeneration ability.

It is possible that regeneration becomes more difficult and less effective
the greater the disruption of the aura (to a certain extent, this works for
me, but I think Essence loss of greater than 1 would shut down the power
entirely, or systemic cyberware like Wired Reflexes). In this scenario the
flesh hurling physadept would still regenerate, but at a much slower pace
and would probably leave scarring and pitting and wouldn't be able to
regenerate the entire mass of flesh scooped out (without saying anything
about the effectiveness of the insane weapon in the first place).

It is also possible that the aura disruption has no ill effects on
regeneration, but this seems to run contrary to what FASA says about the
effects of cybernetics on things magical.

To recap: it is possible, even probable, that 205X surgical techniques
would allow the implantation of cybernetics. But it is highly probably
that because of the damage/alteration to the aura, the regeneration power
would be negatively impacted in some way.

That's my take on the topic anyway.

Erik J.


"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
Message no. 29
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:07:09 -0700
----------
> From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 10:20 AM
>
> Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman wrote:
> /
> / ----------
> / > From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
> / > To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> / > Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> / > Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:32 AM
> / >
> / > Cobra wrote:
> / > /
> / > / 1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much too
> / powerful.
> / >
> / > Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and
dicing
> / > until the patient's regeneration failed.
> /
> / Typically that means that they are dead. =) YMMV, though.
>
> Regeneration can fail if the person takes a Deadly wound. A Deadly
> wound does not equal death.
>
> In the controlled environment of a hospital it is possible to do
> enough "damage" to a person to kill him while keeping him alive using
> machines to take the place of organ functions. It might also be
> possible in SR to actively lower the temperature of a patient to a
> point where the cells "suspend" their activitity, thus preventing
> regeneration during surgery.

"The being cannot be killed by wounds except when the damage injures the
spine or brain. Check for this type of damage whenever the being takes a
Deadly wound or its cumulative wounds take it down. Roll 1d6. A result of
1 indicates that the being IS, INDEED, DEAD (emphasis mine). Otherwise,
wounds still hurt being, giving penalties to actions as for normal
characters, but if the wounds do not cause death, THE WOUNDS VANISH AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE NEXT COMBAT TURN (again, my emphasis).

"Damage from weapons that cause massive tissue damage (fire, explosion, and
so on) will also kill on a 1d6 die roll result of 1 or 2."

-BBB, p. 219

In short, if you do Deadly damage to a creature regenerates, he is either
dead, or will be just splendid in under three seconds. No "suspended
regeneration". This may not make sense if you think they should have
damage over flow, but that's how the rules read. Cold temperatures might
slow the function, but that's a personal call that I don't believe is
covered. Either way, it is only slowed, but I would not consider it
stopped, and it will still be a wound that will heal later and cause
problems as it tries to force the cyber out.


>
> I can think of many other ways to work around the regeneration power
> to perform surgery on someone, from using drugs to repress the power,
> to using magic.
>

I covered the drugs one. Magic is also pretty likely, and I hadn't thought
to include it in my analysis.

> Given the options available in SR I believe that it would be possible to
> perform surgery on a patient with regeneration.
>

I disagree, but ultimately it's your call, I guess.

> / IMHO, though, even if it was weakened enough to keep a wound open and
> / stick a piece of cyberware in there, it would then make a forcible
attempt
> / to try and close up the wound once the energy was restored and try to
> / remove the offending object from the body, much like I imagine it would
do
> / if it got shot.
>
> Why would a regenerator reject something that a normal person
> wouldn't? Today we can make implants that the human body will
> accept: titanium hip ball/socket joints, plastic knees, pace makers,
> steel pins and screws used to hold shattered bones together, etc.
> The cyberware of SR meets the same conditions. They are made of
> materials that a person's immune system will not recognize as a
> foreign object and will blithly ignore.
>

Given that regeners heal differently than a normal person, I'd say yes. I
don't know to emphasize that any more. They are not normal people. They
heal very differently. You gouge out a person's eye, that person no longer
has an eye. Forever and ever if he doesn't receive the benefits of
advanced cloning methods. You gouge a regener's eye out, it will attempt
to regrow the eye. If something is in the spot where that eye is at, it
will attempt to either push it out, or regrow the eye around it in a fairly
painful fashion. You rip a normal person's arm off, he will have no arm
forever and ever. You rip a regener's arm off, and his body will attempt
to regrow it, and force anything out of the way in order to accomplish it.

> So, you perform the surgery using some method to circumnavigate the
> regenerative power of the patient. You implant the cyberware. You
> return the person to normal and let the regeneration power kick in.
>
> The person's surgical "wounds" heal. The implants are not recognized
> as foreign objects, and are not rejected, and are accepted as part of
> the body.
>

I suppose this ultimately assumes that you don't believe it regrows missing
bits. Read my take on it below.

> / How about this model:
> /
> / You're a creature with regeneration. You decide to get cybereyes. You
> / have your current eyes removed, mechanical ones put it. Your
supernatural
> / ability of regeneration then will try to regrow the eyes that were
> / "damaged" by the surgical removal.
>
> Why? I'm serious. Where in the description of the power does it say
> that the power will allow the person with it to regrow lost body
> parts?
>
> I know in good old AD$D the spell Regeneration was quite clear on the
> matter. But in SR that isn't the case. And I don't feel that just
> because the power is named Regeneration that you can go by the
> definition in the dictionary. SR has a spell called Sleep that does
> nothing of the sort, instead causing stun damage to the target. The
> Name does not equal the power in SR.
>

I'll have to admit you got me there. I don't know where it says that. I
feel that it's a reasonable interpretation of the rules, I guess. If a
great dragon were to literally rip out the entrails of a regener, he still
will be automatically healed in three seconds provided that the spine and
brain are unharmed in the process. Explain to me how he will be totally
healed from that kind of damage without regrowing body parts.
Message no. 30
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:45:11 +0100
At 12-Mai-98 wrote David Buehrer:



>Question: Do shapeshifters have the power of regeneration in both forms,
>or only thier animal form?

NPC shifters have it in both forms and far better then the PC shifters.
PC shifters only in animal form and then less advanged.
Well, so far to the same rules for NPc/PCs....

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 31
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:48:21 -0400
At 04:17 PM 5/12/98 -0400, Erik J. wrote:

<snip the cap>
>
>To recap: it is possible, even probable, that 205X surgical techniques
>would allow the implantation of cybernetics. But it is highly probably
>that because of the damage/alteration to the aura, the regeneration power
>would be negatively impacted in some way.

I agree, and in a way this is already accounted for in the rules. A shaper
regenerates a number of boxes of damage equal to its essence rating
(Companion rules, Pg. 37-8). It is therefore the case that if cyberware is
implanted (or bioware by the core Shadowtech rules, since I'd consider a
shaper magically active) the regeneration power does not work as well or
quickly. If in general the regeneration power heals a number of boxes
equal to essence, then the above is accounted for. I think this is a good
solution especially for things like regeneration spells or physad powers.

--DT

(don't you love the way we can disagree on one topic and agree on another
on this list. I hope we don't piss each other off too much while
disagreeing, or we'll spoil the whole environment)
Message no. 32
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:11:33 +0100
At 12-Mai-98 wrote Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman:



>In short, if you do Deadly damage to a creature regenerates, he is either
>dead, or will be just splendid in under three seconds. No "suspended
>regeneration". This may not make sense if you think they should have
>damage over flow, but that's how the rules read.

It makes sense when you recall that NPCs don`t have overflow and the power
was intended for NPCs at first.
Since I use in my game overflow for NPCs too, I don`t see why I shouldn`t,
the power has to be slightly altered in the stated way that just the regen
fails to
heal and the creature is normaly dying like anybody else.




--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 33
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:20:20 -0700
----------
> From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 4:11 PM
>
> At 12-Mai-98 wrote Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman:
>
>
>
> >In short, if you do Deadly damage to a creature regenerates, he is
either
> >dead, or will be just splendid in under three seconds. No "suspended
> >regeneration". This may not make sense if you think they should have
> >damage over flow, but that's how the rules read.
>
> It makes sense when you recall that NPCs don`t have overflow and the
power
> was intended for NPCs at first.
> Since I use in my game overflow for NPCs too, I don`t see why I
shouldn`t,
> the power has to be slightly altered in the stated way that just the
regen
> fails to
> heal and the creature is normaly dying like anybody else.
>

NPCs don't have overflow...? I usually let them have overflow. Dunno if
that follows the rules, but that's what I do. In fact, when i was GMing,
my players sorta insisted on it... kept torture victims alive longer. I
guess for me, I'd say that the normal rule is in effect, plus if they
overflow more boxes than they have body before they regenerate, they die,
no roll. That's just me, though. Otherwise I think it'd be too nutty,
especially in the hands of players. I haven't read the treatment of it in
the Shadowrun Companion, though, so they might have made modifications.

This does remind me of an ongoing, er, discussion in our group:
What do you consider the Deadly damage of much renown to be? Is it someone
who has been worked down to deadly damage by repeated hits, or someone who
receives one big deadly damage whack.
Message no. 34
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:34:16 +0100
At 12-Mai-98 wrote Lehlan Decker:


>I've been staying out of this argument, but I suppose I'll comment.
>Ultimately, I don't let have shapers or vampires have cyberware for game
>balance. They are powerful enough and there is no direct drawback for them
>unless they are also magicians. But I digress....
>I interpret regeneration (the power) to be based on the astral template
>(true self), of the shapeshifter. This is how it knows to reject cyberware.
>No matter what the body says, the template is wrong.

Exactly, and to let a regenerating creature have cyberware you have to
alter the astral template to incorporate this chages.




--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 35
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:25:35 -0500
On Tue, 12 May 1998 13:07:09 -0700 "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman"
<jeremy@***********.COM> writes:
>----------
>> From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
>> Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman wrote:
>> / > From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
>> / > Cobra wrote:
>> / > / 1/ You can't be hospitalized because regeneration power is much
too
>> / > / powerful.

>> / > Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and
dicing
>> / > until the patient's regeneration failed.

>> / Typically that means that they are dead. =) YMMV, though.

>> Regeneration can fail if the person takes a Deadly wound. A Deadly
>> wound does not equal death.
>>
>> In the controlled environment of a hospital it is possible to do
>> enough "damage" to a person to kill him while keeping him alive using
>> machines to take the place of organ functions. It might also be
>> possible in SR to actively lower the temperature of a patient to a
>> point where the cells "suspend" their activitity, thus preventing
>> regeneration during surgery.

>"The being cannot be killed by wounds except when the damage injures the
>spine or brain. Check for this type of damage whenever the being takes
a
>Deadly wound or its cumulative wounds take it down. Roll 1d6. A result
of
>1 indicates that the being IS, INDEED, DEAD (emphasis mine).
>Otherwise, wounds still hurt being, giving penalties to actions as for
normal
>characters, but if the wounds do not cause death, THE WOUNDS VANISH AT
THE
>BEGINNING OF THE NEXT COMBAT TURN (again, my emphasis).
>
>"Damage from weapons that cause massive tissue damage (fire, explosion,
and
>so on) will also kill on a 1d6 die roll result of 1 or 2."
>
>-BBB, p. 219
>
>In short, if you do Deadly damage to a creature regenerates, he is
either
>dead, or will be just splendid in under three seconds. No suspended
>regeneration". This may not make sense if you think they should have
damage >over flow, but that's how the rules read. Cold temperatures
might
>slow the function, but that's a personal call that I don't believe is
covered. > Either way, it is only slowed, but I would not consider it
stopped, and it >will still be a wound that will heal later and cause
problems as it tries to >force the cyber out.

I believe by dead the BBB meant dying, however once the regenerating
critter was stabalized, the regeneration would kick back in (IMO). I
believe the lowering temperature to halt the regeneration would work...
however, would the docs still be able to operate?

>> I can think of many other ways to work around the regeneration power
>> to perform surgery on someone, from using drugs to repress the power,
>> to using magic.

>I covered the drugs one. Magic is also pretty likely, and I hadn't
thought
>to include it in my analysis.

>> Given the options available in SR I believe that it would be possible
to
>> perform surgery on a patient with regeneration.

>I disagree, but ultimately it's your call, I guess.

>> / IMHO, though, even if it was weakened enough to keep a wound open
and
>> / stick a piece of cyberware in there, it would then make a forcible
attempt
>> / to try and close up the wound once the energy was restored and try
to
>> / remove the offending object from the body, much like I imagine it
would do
>> / if it got shot.

>> Why would a regenerator reject something that a normal person
>> wouldn't? Today we can make implants that the human body will
>> accept: titanium hip ball/socket joints, plastic knees, pace makers,
>> steel pins and screws used to hold shattered bones together, etc.
>> The cyberware of SR meets the same conditions. They are made of
>> materials that a person's immune system will not recognize as a
>> foreign object and will blithly ignore.

>Given that regeners heal differently than a normal person, I'd say yes.
I
>don't know to emphasize that any more. They are not normal people.
They
>heal very differently. You gouge out a person's eye, that person no
longer
>has an eye. Forever and ever if he doesn't receive the benefits of
>advanced cloning methods. You gouge a regener's eye out, it will
attempt
>to regrow the eye. If something is in the spot where that eye is at, it
>will attempt to either push it out, or regrow the eye around it in a
fairly
>painful fashion. You rip a normal person's arm off, he will have no arm
>forever and ever. You rip a regener's arm off, and his body will
attempt
>to regrow it, and force anything out of the way in order to accomplish
it.

hmmmmm... I think the regener's rejection of cyber is just something FASA
stuck in to keep you from running into say a Vampire with wired 3 (for
total of +5D6 Ini) I can understand if they did it maintain balance, but
it would be nice if they could acheive the same effect (balanced game)
with out resort to "it's just so" (which they didn't to do, but kinda
came close to :) IMO, the cyber would block the regeneration of the eye
in your example, but it is really hard to say ... are there any RL
examples of regeneration? I know of lizards regrowing their tails, but
none others ... It might help to look to see how any of these specimems
regenerate when the regeneration is blocked (no, I'm not recommending
anybody experiment, but if anybody has any knowledge on the matter,
please share :)

<SNIP rest>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 36
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:53:21 +1000
David Buehrer writes:
>Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
>until the patient's regeneration failed.


Or use a weapon that the 'patient' is allergic to... such wounds don't
regenerate.

>Here's my take on the subject.
>
>Cyberware could theoretically be installed in a person/creature with
>regeneration. As I stated above the actual instalation is possible,
>difficult, but possible.
>
>Once it's installed I don't think that regeneration would reject the
>cyberware. Cyberware doesn't cause damage to it's owner. The
>regeneration power is only effective against damage caused to the
>person/creature.
>
>After installation the regeneration power would heal the damage
>caused by the surgery, but it shouldn't reject the cyberware.


Hmm... okay. Here's the scenario: My regenerating PC goes in and says "Hey,
mister doc, gimme a cyberarm!". The doc says okay, lops off the arm, puts
the cyber in, and pushes the PC off the table and out the door. On the other
side of the door, the regeneration power says "Hey, I don't have an arm
anymore", waits for the base damage (caused by the allergic substance) to
heal, then starts regrowing the arm. That's going to cause real problems for
the cyberarm that's already there.

Ditto datajack (there's a hole in your head, for Dog's sake!), ditto _all_
forms of cyber. Ditto bioware, even, as the regenerative cells would be far
more aggressive and would drive off the (non-regenerative) bioware.

As I stated in an earlier post, the only way you could _keep_ cyber in a
regenerating being would be to coat all the connections to the flesh in a
substance the 'patient' is allergic to. And that would cause severe and
constant pain to the 'patient'. And I'm yet to see someone dispute the
reasoning presented in that earlier post, except for Barbie who pointed out
that I'd overlooked cybermancy. (Of course, you're welcome to do so... :)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 37
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:23:10 +0100
And verily, did Fade hastily scribble thusly...
|That implies that paying essence for something does not make it
|part of the aura, whatever implications that has. But then what about
|why you can cast spells through cybereyes? Why one thing and not the
|other?

Irrelevant point. Sorry.
You don't need eyes to see on the astral.
There are several blind PC/NPC mages who use astral perseption to see.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 38
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:29:40 +0100
And verily, did David Thompson hastily scribble thusly...
|I buy all that, especially about essence loss and cyberware, and it
|becoming integrated into your aura. The question then is: if a
|shapeshifter is in human form, and has cyberware installed (and it is clear
|this is possible), do they not lose any essence. When they transform back
|to animal form, it is canon that the cyberware is rejected. Do they lose
|essence and get it back, or never lose the essence, or lose the essence and
|reject the cyberware anyway.

1> Yes. They lose essence.
2> No, they're stuck forever in the form they had the cyber implanted in.
(They lose their shifter powers)

Or at least, that's what somoene on the list's said a few times over the
years.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 39
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:28:40 +0100
At 12-Mai-98 wrote Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman:



>NPCs don't have overflow...? I usually let them have overflow. Dunno if
>that follows the rules, but that's what I do. In fact, when i was GMing,
>my players sorta insisted on it... kept torture victims alive longer. I
>guess for me, I'd say that the normal rule is in effect, plus if they
>overflow more boxes than they have body before they regenerate, they die,
>no roll. That's just me, though. Otherwise I think it'd be too nutty,
>especially in the hands of players. I haven't read the treatment of it in
>the Shadowrun Companion, though, so they might have made modifications.

Exactly like me :)

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 40
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:32:59 -0700
----------
> From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 3:25 PM
>
> >In short, if you do Deadly damage to a creature regenerates, he is
> either
> >dead, or will be just splendid in under three seconds. No suspended
> >regeneration". This may not make sense if you think they should have
> damage >over flow, but that's how the rules read. Cold temperatures
> might
> >slow the function, but that's a personal call that I don't believe is
> covered. > Either way, it is only slowed, but I would not consider it
> stopped, and it >will still be a wound that will heal later and cause
> problems as it tries to >force the cyber out.
>
> I believe by dead the BBB meant dying, however once the regenerating
> critter was stabalized, the regeneration would kick back in (IMO). I

I suppose you can interpret it that way. I tend to take it quite
literally, but each person's campaign is different. I'll try not to
nitpick over something like interpretation. The thing about serious damage
to the brain seems to indicate that they are quite, quite dead. At best
spinal damage might mean they live, but are unable to send the nerve
impulses to the rest of the body to tell it to grow. So if it lives, it
will be quite messed up. Brain damaged and/or paralyzed.


> believe the lowering temperature to halt the regeneration would work...
> however, would the docs still be able to operate?
>

If they could keep from shivering. ;)

>
> hmmmmm... I think the regener's rejection of cyber is just something FASA
> stuck in to keep you from running into say a Vampire with wired 3 (for
> total of +5D6 Ini) I can understand if they did it maintain balance, but
> it would be nice if they could acheive the same effect (balanced game)
> with out resort to "it's just so" (which they didn't to do, but kinda
> came close to :) IMO, the cyber would block the regeneration of the eye
> in your example, but it is really hard to say ... are there any RL
> examples of regeneration? I know of lizards regrowing their tails, but
> none others ... It might help to look to see how any of these specimems
> regenerate when the regeneration is blocked (no, I'm not recommending
> anybody experiment, but if anybody has any knowledge on the matter,
> please share :)
>

I believe starfish are able to regenerate missing limbs, even forming two
starfish if you chop it right. Crabs will regrow missing claws and legs,
IIRC. None of them can do it in under three seconds, I don't think. When
your body grows bits back that fast, I think the correct term for anything
block said growth would be, in a word, excrutiating. The thought occured
to me that if there was a relatively non-invasive bit o' cyberware, rather
than something like cyberwires, it would be a bit more feasible, but still
a little uncomfortable. I'm at a loss to think of many things that would
fit under that catagory. Boosted reflexes, maybe. MBW, if you did it
right. Maybe. Bone lacing? It would still be a bit uncomfortable, so
even if you were to allow them to get cyberware in somehow without a
continued handicap to their regeneration, I'd say they'd get a modifier as
though injured.

Granted, this seems to make the assumption that regeneration regrows back
bits, rather than just accelerated healing. That seems to be a big crux on
this discussion.
Message no. 41
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 04:59:18 +0000
On a tangent...

I recently heard about some scientists having found out how to make
the human body regenerate lost parts.

I have no details nor specifics, though.


--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 42
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 04:59:18 +0000
Spike wrote:
> And verily, did Fade hastily scribble thusly...
> |That implies that paying essence for something does not make it
> |part of the aura, whatever implications that has. But then what about
> |why you can cast spells through cybereyes? Why one thing and not the
> |other?
>
> Irrelevant point. Sorry.
> You don't need eyes to see on the astral.
> There are several blind PC/NPC mages who use astral perseption to see.

Irrelevant point. Sorry.
Sorcery adepts, without astral perception, and with cybereyes, can
still cast spells.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 43
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 05:28:42 +0000
Robert Watkins wrote:
> >Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
> >until the patient's regeneration failed.
>
> Or use a weapon that the 'patient' is allergic to... such wounds don't
> regenerate.

I saw this interpretation a few other places as well. It's not
entirely correct - it is regenerated slower, not not at all. (1 box
per minute), at least according to SR Companion.
(Is that book cause of a few arguments or what? :)

I snipped the rest because it basically assumed it didn't regenerate.

Now, if you ask me to quote it, I can't, but it was written a couple
of hundred posts ago in the chunk thread, IIRC. I also seem to recall
it might not be that way in the BBB, which would add to the
confusion.. and leave more room for things to go either way.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 44
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:36:10 +1000
Fade writes:
>Robert Watkins wrote:
>> >Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
>> >until the patient's regeneration failed.
>>
>> Or use a weapon that the 'patient' is allergic to... such wounds don't
>> regenerate.

>I saw this interpretation a few other places as well. It's not
>entirely correct - it is regenerated slower, not not at all. (1 box
>per minute), at least according to SR Companion.
>(Is that book cause of a few arguments or what? :)


It was probably my interpretation. I don't have the SR Companion. And in the
BBB, it gives the ruling I used above.

OTH, if even wounds caused by allergies regenerate, then by the rest of the
reasoning I used, it would _not_ be possible to put cyber into a
regenerating PC (My post stated that would be the only way).

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 45
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:11:04 +1000
Um, Fade, your posts are a little awkward to reply to, as my mailer (and
others, I think) don't format the reply properly (see below).

The reason is this line in the header:
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

If you've been getting complaints about it (this isn't one, BTW. :) ), then
you can solve the problem by working out how to turn that line off.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Wednesday, 13 May 1998 13:34
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration


Robert Watkins wrote:
> >Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
> >until the patient's regeneration failed.
>
> Or use a weapon that the 'patient' is allergic to... such wounds don't
> regenerate.

I saw this interpretation a few other places as well. It's not
entirely correct - it is regenerated slower, not not at all. (1 box
per minute), at least according to SR Companion.
(Is that book cause of a few arguments or what? :)

I snipped the rest because it basically assumed it didn't regenerate.

Now, if you ask me to quote it, I can't, but it was written a couple
of hundred posts ago in the chunk thread, IIRC. I also seem to recall
it might not be that way in the BBB, which would add to the
confusion.. and leave more room for things to go either way.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 46
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:01:42 +0100
And verily, did Fade hastily scribble thusly...
|Irrelevant point. Sorry.
|Sorcery adepts, without astral perception, and with cybereyes, can
|still cast spells.

Irrelevant point. Sorry.
(AAAARGH! I'm in a recursive loop! Is there no escape???)
:)

Read up on spell casting.
The targetting of spells relies on a VERY limited form of astral perseption.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 47
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:20:47 -0500
>
> At 12-Mai-98 wrote Lehlan Decker:
>
>
> >I've been staying out of this argument, but I suppose I'll comment.
> >Ultimately, I don't let have shapers or vampires have cyberware for game
> >balance. They are powerful enough and there is no direct drawback for them
> >unless they are also magicians. But I digress....
> >I interpret regeneration (the power) to be based on the astral template
> >(true self), of the shapeshifter. This is how it knows to reject cyberware.
> >No matter what the body says, the template is wrong.
>
> Exactly, and to let a regenerating creature have cyberware you have to
> alter the astral template to incorporate this chages.
>
>
Hmm..that might be a possibility in a high powered game. Seems like
it would take some powerful ritual magic, etc. Or finding the ritual
might be several runs in and of itself. The other question I have, is
the way I see shapeshifters mindset, why would any of them want
cyberware? If a player could come up with a valid reason, and wanted
to go through the hellacious runs I would put him through, I'd probably
allow it, in that instance.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 48
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:02:59 -0700
----------
> From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 8:36 PM
>
> >I saw this interpretation a few other places as well. It's not
> >entirely correct - it is regenerated slower, not not at all. (1 box
> >per minute), at least according to SR Companion.
> >(Is that book cause of a few arguments or what? :)
>
>
> It was probably my interpretation. I don't have the SR Companion. And in
the
> BBB, it gives the ruling I used above.
>

Where did you find this in the BBB? I just checked out the entry for
"Regeneration" and "Allergy", and neither indicate that view.
Particularly
potent allergies cause more damage, but it all gets regenerated back at
the beginning of the next turn. I didn't look too extensively, so if
there's something under shapeshifters, I'd be missing it.
Message no. 49
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:13:42 -0600
Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman wrote:
/
/ ----------
/ > From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
/ >
/ > Regeneration can fail if the person takes a Deadly wound. A Deadly
/ > wound does not equal death.
/ >
/ > In the controlled environment of a hospital it is possible to do
/ > enough "damage" to a person to kill him while keeping him alive using
/ > machines to take the place of organ functions. It might also be
/ > possible in SR to actively lower the temperature of a patient to a
/ > point where the cells "suspend" their activitity, thus preventing
/ > regeneration during surgery.
/
/ "The being cannot be killed by wounds except when the damage injures the
/ spine or brain. Check for this type of damage whenever the being takes a
/ Deadly wound or its cumulative wounds take it down. Roll 1d6. A result of
/ 1 indicates that the being IS, INDEED, DEAD (emphasis mine). Otherwise,
/ wounds still hurt being, giving penalties to actions as for normal
/ characters, but if the wounds do not cause death, THE WOUNDS VANISH AT THE
/ BEGINNING OF THE NEXT COMBAT TURN (again, my emphasis).
/
/ "Damage from weapons that cause massive tissue damage (fire, explosion, and
/ so on) will also kill on a 1d6 die roll result of 1 or 2."
/
/ -BBB, p. 219

Woops. My mistake. Excuse me while I put my words in a bowl with some
milk and sugar before I eat them :)

/ > Given the options available in SR I believe that it would be possible to
/ > perform surgery on a patient with regeneration.
/
/ I disagree, but ultimately it's your call, I guess.

Yep, since it comes down to a GM call it would be different from game
to game. I still thing it'd be possible to lower a regenerator's
body temperature low enough that their cells would enter a state of
suspended animation (without actually freezing them). But then again
the power may not be related to the cells at all, and may be a wholly
magical manifestation.

/ > I know in good old AD$D the spell Regeneration was quite clear on the
/ > matter. But in SR that isn't the case. And I don't feel that just
/ > because the power is named Regeneration that you can go by the
/ > definition in the dictionary. SR has a spell called Sleep that does
/ > nothing of the sort, instead causing stun damage to the target. The
/ > Name does not equal the power in SR.
/
/ I'll have to admit you got me there. I don't know where it says that. I
/ feel that it's a reasonable interpretation of the rules, I guess. If a
/ great dragon were to literally rip out the entrails of a regener, he still
/ will be automatically healed in three seconds provided that the spine and
/ brain are unharmed in the process. Explain to me how he will be totally
/ healed from that kind of damage without regrowing body parts.

Okay, upon reflection any cyberware which *replaces* tissue would
probably be rejected by a person/critter with regeneration. However,
those forms of cyberware which do not replace tissue might not be
rejected.

For example, you could perform surgery (by somehow conteracting the
regeneration) and *place* a piece of cyberware in their body. Neural
cyberware could communicate with the body through induction.

True, this could only be done with a limited number of cyberware, but
I think it could be done.

-David
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 50
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:16:20 -0600
David Thompson wrote:
/
/ At 04:17 PM 5/12/98 -0400, Erik J. wrote:
/
/ <snip the cap>
/ >
/ >To recap: it is possible, even probable, that 205X surgical techniques
/ >would allow the implantation of cybernetics. But it is highly probably
/ >that because of the damage/alteration to the aura, the regeneration power
/ >would be negatively impacted in some way.
/
/ I agree, and in a way this is already accounted for in the rules. A shaper
/ regenerates a number of boxes of damage equal to its essence rating
/ (Companion rules, Pg. 37-8). It is therefore the case that if cyberware is
/ implanted (or bioware by the core Shadowtech rules, since I'd consider a
/ shaper magically active) the regeneration power does not work as well or
/ quickly. If in general the regeneration power heals a number of boxes
/ equal to essence, then the above is accounted for. I think this is a good
/ solution especially for things like regeneration spells or physad powers.

Cool. Course that only applies to PC shifters. Since the Regeneration
power works differently for NPCs and Critters I don't think it should be
possible to successfully install most forms of cyberware in them (for the
exception see my previous post).

/ (don't you love the way we can disagree on one topic and agree on another
/ on this list. I hope we don't piss each other off too much while
/ disagreeing, or we'll spoil the whole environment)

:) It's an art form, I'll grant you that.

-David
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 51
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:42:05 -0500
On Wed, 13 May 1998 08:02:59 -0700 "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman"
<jeremy@***********.COM> writes:
>----------
>> From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
>> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
>> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
>> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 8:36 PM
>>
>> >I saw this interpretation a few other places as well. It's not
>> >entirely correct - it is regenerated slower, not not at all. (1 box
>> >per minute), at least according to SR Companion.
>> >(Is that book cause of a few arguments or what? :)
>>
>>
>> It was probably my interpretation. I don't have the SR Companion. And
in the
>> BBB, it gives the ruling I used above.
>>
>
>Where did you find this in the BBB? I just checked out the entry for
>"Regeneration" and "Allergy", and neither indicate that view.
Particularly
>potent allergies cause more damage, but it all gets regenerated back at
>the beginning of the next turn. I didn't look too extensively, so if
>there's something under shapeshifters, I'd be missing it.

I think he is thinking of Vulnerbility?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 52
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:38:33 -0700
----------
> From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 8:42 AM
>
> On Wed, 13 May 1998 08:02:59 -0700 "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman"
> <jeremy@***********.COM> writes:
> >----------
> >
> >Where did you find this in the BBB? I just checked out the entry for
> >"Regeneration" and "Allergy", and neither indicate that view.
> Particularly
> >potent allergies cause more damage, but it all gets regenerated back at
> >the beginning of the next turn. I didn't look too extensively, so if
> >there's something under shapeshifters, I'd be missing it.
>
> I think he is thinking of Vulnerbility?
>

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Vulnerability does read, though:

"Beings recover (or regenerate) from wounds inflicted by the substances to
which they are vulnerable at the same speed at which they recover from
wounds caused by other sources."

-BBB


In the case of a creature with regen, under three seconds.
Message no. 53
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 02:12:43 +0100
At 13-Mai-98 wrote Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman:



>Where did you find this in the BBB? I just checked out the entry for
>"Regeneration" and "Allergy", and neither indicate that view.
Particularly
>potent allergies cause more damage, but it all gets regenerated back at
>the beginning of the next turn. I didn't look too extensively, so if
>there's something under shapeshifters, I'd be missing it.

No you didn`t missed it NPC regen heals wounds from allergic substance just as
fast as other wounds. the only difference is the initial damage level.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 54
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 02:22:48 +0100
At 13-Mai-98 wrote Lehlan Decker:


>>
>>
>Hmm..that might be a possibility in a high powered game. Seems like
>it would take some powerful ritual magic, etc. Or finding the ritual
>might be several runs in and of itself. The other question I have, is
>the way I see shapeshifters mindset, why would any of them want
>cyberware? If a player could come up with a valid reason, and wanted
>to go through the hellacious runs I would put him through, I'd probably
>allow it, in that instance.

Exactly this is the point its a highpowered very unusual magic, similiar to
cybermancy from which it draws the basic idea of altering the astral template.
In my game it happened once to me by the GM, my char ened up in a lab of some
nasty gentech corp as test sample was SLOWLY turned into a
shifter....brainwashed and all such nice stuff. They wanted to create a `super
soldier`. So to keep her alive they draw on help from some better unnamed
mages to perform this ritual on her.
The whole thing lasted around 10 full blwon runs till she got free again, the
whole campaign took nearly a year.

And why does want a shifter cyber? Yep, thats the TRICKY part...

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 55
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:19:52 -0700
----------
> From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 6:12 PM
>
> At 13-Mai-98 wrote Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman:
>
>
>
> >Where did you find this in the BBB? I just checked out the entry for
> >"Regeneration" and "Allergy", and neither indicate that view.
Particularly
> >potent allergies cause more damage, but it all gets regenerated back at
> >the beginning of the next turn. I didn't look too extensively, so if
> >there's something under shapeshifters, I'd be missing it.
>
> No you didn`t missed it NPC regen heals wounds from allergic substance
just as
> fast as other wounds. the only difference is the initial damage level.
>

Oh, good. I didn't want to look like a dumbass. =) You did touch on what
I missed, though: The fact that the PC version of the shapeshifters use
different rules for regeneration. I'll have to read up in the Companion
and return armed and dangerous! Grr. Don't I look scary? =)
Message no. 56
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:09:04 -0400
|> From: Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman
|> Sent: May 13, 1998 12:39 PM
|> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration

|> "Beings recover (or regenerate) from wounds inflicted by the
|> substances to
|> which they are vulnerable at the same speed at which they recover from
|> wounds caused by other sources."

So, if my cognitive skills are okay and the quote accurate, one would
see that a vulnerability will cause one damage, but the damage heals a per
any normal wound, ergo, cutting someone with an object made of material the
subject is vulnerable to will actually not cause any problem for the
subject, as long as said subject has the power Regenerate.

-M
Message no. 57
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:41:55 -0700
----------
> From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 8:09 PM
>
> |> From: Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman
> |> Sent: May 13, 1998 12:39 PM
> |> Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
>
> |> "Beings recover (or regenerate) from wounds inflicted by the
> |> substances to
> |> which they are vulnerable at the same speed at which they recover from
> |> wounds caused by other sources."
>
> So, if my cognitive skills are okay and the quote accurate, one
would
> see that a vulnerability will cause one damage, but the damage heals a
per
> any normal wound, ergo, cutting someone with an object made of material
the
> subject is vulnerable to will actually not cause any problem for the
> subject, as long as said subject has the power Regenerate.
>

Pretty much. You have a higher chance of giving him a deadly wound, since
I believe vulnerability stages it up a level, and allergy increases the
power level, depending on the severity of the allergy. So if you were to
go up against Strahd von Sillygoose, I'd rather have Hans and Franz the
street sammies with wired reflexes 3 and their Panther Assault Cannons with
integral smart-gun links and maybe a mage stacking mana bolts than Dr. van
Helsings going at with a stake and a bottle of holy water. =)

"Say it with sabots."

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cyberware and Regeneration, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.