[Shrazkil]

I know this would be more of a GM decision ultimately, but would the following tactic be able to get me a surprise attack?

As a mysad Face, i play the damsel in distress (handcuffed, have my fellow runners shoot at me when i try to "escape" ) , use con ( would have 27 fast-talk dice )
to hide behind my targets...errr i mean rescuers. Then, once they focus on my team (or at least 1 member who was my captor or perpetrator) , I cast a nice hefty force 10 Punch, with my magical mojo aura.

Would that be likely to get me a defenseless roll?

[Quickscope]

Can someone please clarify the Improved Range finder for me? I have a Street Sammy that has Vision Magnification, but it is not on the weapon. Does this means that Improved Range Finder stacks with my innate Vision magnification?

[Kincaid]

I know this would be more of a GM decision ultimately, but would the following tactic be able to get me a surprise attack?

As a mysad Face, i play the damsel in distress (handcuffed, have my fellow runners shoot at me when i try to "escape" ) , use con ( would have 27 fast-talk dice )
to hide behind my targets...errr i mean rescuers. Then, once they focus on my team (or at least 1 member who was my captor or perpetrator) , I cast a nice hefty force 10 Punch, with my magical mojo aura.

Would that be likely to get me a defenseless roll?

Simply using my GM hat, I'd have people roll to notice your casting (p. 280).  If they did notice, I'd have everyone roll for Surprise, with your side getting bonus dice.  So you'd have a shot at getting them flat-footed.

[Shrazkil]

I know this would be more of a GM decision ultimately, but would the following tactic be able to get me a surprise attack?

As a mysad Face, i play the damsel in distress (handcuffed, have my fellow runners shoot at me when i try to "escape" ) , use con ( would have 27 fast-talk dice )
to hide behind my targets...errr i mean rescuers. Then, once they focus on my team (or at least 1 member who was my captor or perpetrator) , I cast a nice hefty force 10 Punch, with my magical mojo aura.

Would that be likely to get me a defenseless roll?

Well at force 10 they would certainly notice(unless penalties for being distracted by a threat, and having their backs turned) , but surprise roll still potentially worth it, if not enough targets to put me in immediate life-threatening danger.

Simply using my GM hat, I'd have people roll to notice your casting (p. 280).  If they did notice, I'd have everyone roll for Surprise, with your side getting bonus dice.  So you'd have a shot at getting them flat-footed.

[Namikaze]

Can someone please clarify the Improved Range finder for me? I have a Street Sammy that has Vision Magnification, but it is not on the weapon. Does this means that Improved Range Finder stacks with my innate Vision magnification?

Where is the character's vision magnification?  Is it built into a cybereye?

[Quickscope]

Can someone please clarify the Improved Range finder for me? I have a Street Sammy that has Vision Magnification, but it is not on the weapon. Does this means that Improved Range Finder stacks with my innate Vision magnification?

Where is the character's vision magnification?  Is it built into a cybereye?

It is part of a vision augment into his natural eye.

[Namikaze]

Then he gets to use either mod, imo.  There will be those that disagree, meaning this might need to become a separate thread.  Here's my rationale:

The vision magnification is in the eye, magnifying anything the eye sees.  The range finder is in the scope, which targets what the scope "sees."  These can be two different things, or the same thing, but what is important is that they are separate.  Generally speaking, I don't let my players with vision magnification in their eyes use many modifications in their scopes to help, because the scope acts as a sort of stopping point for the vision magnification.  You're basically just zooming in on the scope.  The exception to this is if your optic isn't a magnification optic.

As I said, I'm certain that there are people who would disagree with me, and they might be right - it's a topic that isn't really discussed in the book.  I'm simply working off my own experience in putting magnification screens into firearm optics for the purposes of military training.  What I found was that when you have the scope, and you have the target, the scope supercedes your natural vision - putting any kind of display in there presents a problem, and trying to imagine putting a scope on top of a scope, which I've done, makes it extremely difficult to calibrate and configure.

However, the rules state nothing at all prohibiting this kind of thing, so if it's easier to just stack the effects, then go for it.  What matters in this game isn't realism - it's fun.

[Quickscope]

That's exactly the rationale that I used when explaining it to my GM. If I was using an optic on the rifle (Barrett Model 122) I would see that it does not stack. However, my character is essentially firing with iron sights and integrated smartlink, which will be fed information from the improved range finder. That way, the inherent vision magnification is not impeded by the sight picture via the scope, and therefore would allow me to eliminate 2 range categories when making ranged attacks with firearms. (aka treat extreme range shots as medium range shots) His defense to this is that there is an errata to it, forbidding that combination. If there is an errata to this, I have not seen it, which is why I was asking here in hopes I could get some official word on this pairing and if it was intended to be that way.

[Namikaze]

That's exactly the rationale that I used when explaining it to my GM. If I was using an optic on the rifle (Barrett Model 122) I would see that it does not stack. However, my character is essentially firing with iron sights and integrated smartlink, which will be fed information from the improved range finder. That way, the inherent vision magnification is not impeded by the sight picture via the scope, and therefore would allow me to eliminate 2 range categories when making ranged attacks with firearms. (aka treat extreme range shots as medium range shots) His defense to this is that there is an errata to it, forbidding that combination. If there is an errata to this, I have not seen it, which is why I was asking here in hopes I could get some official word on this pairing and if it was intended to be that way.

I don't believe your GM is correct in his/her statement about errata forbidding this combination.  There's only three errata documents out, and they total less than 75 pages, so it's really not hard to find information like that.  Since you're using iron sights, I'd say go for it.  In fact, I'd heartily encourage that kind of thing, since I believe you've got the right idea.  As far as getting official word though, there's no such thing.    Kidding aside though, it's unlikely that we'll see a developer post to actually clarify anything.  The freelancer that started this thread (Aaron) hasn't been on the site since September 10th, and hasn't posted anything since October 16th of 2013.  So there are a pile of us who are avid players who like to try to state what is and is not RAW.  By RAW, you can absolutely do what you're wanting to do.  Since you're doing it with your iron sights, it's even more feasible.

[JackVII]

With the understanding that I doubt the devs are actually checking this, I'm posting for posterity.

R&G
Q: Is the special Weapon Skill + Reaction [Accuracy] opposing test for Riposte modified by the Reach differential?

[Michael Chandra]

Q: Run&Gun: Are explosion-caused Background Counts Negative or Positive? It talks about rising, but since it predates SG's differing between positive and negative, it's not entirely clear. It talks about Mana Warps, but those are mentioned both as + and - in SG.

[jim1701]

That's exactly the rationale that I used when explaining it to my GM. If I was using an optic on the rifle (Barrett Model 122) I would see that it does not stack. However, my character is essentially firing with iron sights and integrated smartlink, which will be fed information from the improved range finder. That way, the inherent vision magnification is not impeded by the sight picture via the scope, and therefore would allow me to eliminate 2 range categories when making ranged attacks with firearms. (aka treat extreme range shots as medium range shots) His defense to this is that there is an errata to it, forbidding that combination. If there is an errata to this, I have not seen it, which is why I was asking here in hopes I could get some official word on this pairing and if it was intended to be that way.

I don't believe your GM is correct in his/her statement about errata forbidding this combination.  There's only three errata documents out, and they total less than 75 pages, so it's really not hard to find information like that.  Since you're using iron sights, I'd say go for it.  In fact, I'd heartily encourage that kind of thing, since I believe you've got the right idea.  As far as getting official word though, there's no such thing.    Kidding aside though, it's unlikely that we'll see a developer post to actually clarify anything.  The freelancer that started this thread (Aaron) hasn't been on the site since September 10th, and hasn't posted anything since October 16th of 2013.  So there are a pile of us who are avid players who like to try to state what is and is not RAW.  By RAW, you can absolutely do what you're wanting to do.  Since you're doing it with your iron sights, it's even more feasible.

I believe that currently by RAW it would be allowed but my interpretation I believe that it is not RAI.  I think they just got over specific in the wording.  Otherwise there is no reason vision magnification could not eliminate multiple range bands except that it is explicitly forbidden as a game balance mechanic.  Vision magnification allows for 50x magnification which more than sufficient to go from extreme to short range for just about any weapon system.  Also, AFAIK neither of the other two version of range reduction are allowed to stack.  I just don't see why they would leave this single exception to that rule.  That's my two cents YMMV.

[Namikaze]

Also, AFAIK neither of the other two version of range reduction are allowed to stack.  I just don't see why they would leave this single exception to that rule.  That's my two cents YMMV.

I agree with you that I think the text of the Improved Range Finder accessory should be changed to prevent stacking with any vision magnification.  The quote is too specific, indeed.  "This bonus cannot be combined with any bonuses from image magnification on the weapon."  It's the "on the weapon" bit that is weirdly worded.  Most accessories and such don't have such specific terms.  The thing is that the imaging scope accessory specifically comes with vision magnification, which would be the only way that a weapon can get image magnification.  The book doesn't explicitly prevent you from using implanted vision magnification with a scope, either.  Though I think it should.

[Quickscope]

where does it say that different types of range reduction do not stack? Also, glad that it has sparked some healthy debate here. and if vision magnification can grant up to 50x magnification, WTH is it only giving 1 range bracket reduction? you can make an accurate shot at 1,000 yds with a 10x magnification scope. I can only imagine the kind of shot you can make with a 50x magnification.

[ZeConster]

In 4th you could use image magnification to completely neutralize range modifiers - I assume they nerfed it in 5th so that shiny table on page 175 gets more use. As for the stacking: the Improved Range Finder itself says it doesn't stack with image magnification bonuses, but it has "on the weapon" in there, which leaves a bit of a loophole that may not be intended.