[ShadowcatX]

My thought process is this: It isn't covered in the rules, nor the errata. That puts it firmly in GM call territory, which of course is an unhelpful answer. So all that will be set aside.

I'm torn between three ideas. I think magic targeting a person should always get a resistance roll. I'm also of the opinion that one should be a fan of the player characters. Finally, precedence.

Let me talk about precedence first. The Reinforce spell has been mentioned, and it seemingly does not need to overcome object resistance. On the flip side, increase gear limits does need to overcome object resistance. Two positive spells that effect items, totally different answers. Precedence is worthless (thanks catalyst).

At the end of the day I think I would probably allow the armor move once, with the understanding that after that, it would require overcoming object resistance. Likewise I would say beneficial spells grant a resistance roll. Finally, I would ask why we're not playing Shadowrun in the Sprawl, or 6th World or Karma in the Dark...

P.S. Objects can be subjects, not all subjects are objects.

[Jack_Spade]

P.S. Objects can be subjects, not all subjects are objects.

Can, but usually aren't. Objectifying a subject is objectively a suspect thing 

[Marcus]

Can, but usually aren't. Objectifying a subject is objectively a suspect thing 

lol  Such truth.

[Mirikon]

Health spells target living things. They "affect the condition and performance of a living body."

Per the definition of Health spells on page 287, it never says that.

Page 282, the definitions of the categories, it does say that.

Per the spell, page 288, the whole argument is moot, because Heal is a Mana spell, not a Physical one, so only works on living creatures by default.

[SpellBinder]

What do you think about the question of Armor getting a resistance test if cast on a living target who doesn't want the spell/would be harmed by the spell?

It's not exactly the case of casting on a nonliving target, but if a living target is allowed to get a resistance test on a normally unresisted spell used in a hostile way then it's setting the precedent that an "unresisted" spell is indeed sometimes resistable.

Since the Armor spell doesn't require a voluntary target to work, then I'd wholly support a resistance test by anyone who wants to not receive a spell they may not know or want (particularly a character that's mistrusting of all magic or a Pariah).  Just because that magician says he's casting an Armor spell doesn't always mean he's really casting an Armor spell.

And yes, it does mean I'd roll OR against Armor if it were cast on something like a vehicle.