You know, guys, I DO understand the difference between crunch and fluff. But I also understand the differences between different types of crunch.
An Iron Kingdoms Mechanik is far different from a D&D wizard, even though they are using the same basic rules. Mechanika wasn't just fluff, it had a completely different set of rules.
And that's what I was asking. I'm not sure why I'm being criticized over this: there are no rules for a hybrid blending of science and magic in Fantasy Craft. There are no Steamjacks or Warcasters and the like, and yet I'm having fingers shaken at me like they are and I was too stupid to catch it.
I mean, after all, these two quotes:
"Technology continues to displace magic, forcing mages to specialize and cloister, though some embrace and change with the times. These few, and their divine
counterparts, use their power in new and exciting ways, experimenting as
much as the great thinkers of the time." (from the era of Reason)
"Magic often combines with science in the industrial era, resulting in magical technologies beyond imagination. “Steampunk” sorcerers create lightning
bolt guns, time-travel sleds, clockwork animals, and other wild gadgetry that baffles even modern minds. A few mages continue to reject science, however, retreating from society to become witches and cultists" (from era of Industrial)
Suggests that magic and science can in fact blend to create things that are not present in the current rules. And yet I'm getting lambasted here for asking for crunch for something that is directly mentioned in the fluff, for an era that is presented as available?
I'm not sure what I said wrong here to deserve this treatment, over a simple question.