[Mäx]

First most of what you say is based on bias over what "see' means.

And your stubbornly refusing to understand that there is quite a difference between see and "see".

[Blue_Lion]

It really is this simple... the line developers have come outright and said it does not work and it is not the intent of the rules to work in this way. 

If you need more than that...  It is magic... magic follows it's own rules and is for most purposes incompatible with tech and ware.


Only direct vision replacements function for casting spells.   Even if you implant an ocular drone like G'kar in B5... it works as a cybereye until it's removed... at that point it no longer functions to cast spells.   So long as it is a cybereye it works.

All this about cyberlimbs and touch spells is a distraction... as the rules for touch spells have nothing to do with the spellcasting rules for establishing LOS.   It's a red herring and irrelevant.   For those rules again.. you paid essence and it's part of you so long as it stays connected.   (that said.. one GM was amused at an adept with the grapple hand being used as a 'ranged' astral weapon since it stayed attached to me, and there's no reason that couldn't also be used to deliver touch spells).


If it relies on imagelink to process signals from another sensor to act as a visual overlay... it's a no go.   Why?  Because the rules and official clarifications say so.   That's the nature of rules.

When and where did the develpers say that? If you going to make statement that they clearly said it is a no go can you provide a direct quote with the source or a link to it?

The device in question is not removed so it remans as cyberware the whole time.  So it remains direct and replaces vison.
The device in question does not say it needs a image link to work. It simply says it can be a overlay or replace visual sensory information.

[Blue_Lion]

As I play mostly mages character, it would be great to be able to cast threw walls. But as I also master sometimes I probably would not allow it...

Hearing about radar once again, I think of a way to handle it (for me). As it is an overlay, I will use it as an AR (it doesn't matter if your radar is internal or not, you just pay essence cost to have it always with you). Which also prevent some fun things like assensing someone behind a wall using a radar.

It is not only an overlay as it also replaces the users visual sensor imput.

[Blue_Lion]

First most of what you say is based on bias over what "see' means.

And your stubbornly refusing to understand that there is quite a difference between see and "see".

There is a difrence but the difrence is never defined clearly. You think it is a big thing I think it just means it is non standard sight.

[blackangel]

As I play mostly mages character, it would be great to be able to cast threw walls. But as I also master sometimes I probably would not allow it...

Hearing about radar once again, I think of a way to handle it (for me). As it is an overlay, I will use it as an AR (it doesn't matter if your radar is internal or not, you just pay essence cost to have it always with you). Which also prevent some fun things like assensing someone behind a wall using a radar.

It is not only an overlay as it also replaces the users visual sensor imput.

Yes it's what it takes to go from AR to VR, you skip other senses

[All4BigGuns]

First most of what you say is based on bias over what "see' means.

And your stubbornly refusing to understand that there is quite a difference between see and "see".

There is a difrence but the difrence is never defined clearly. You think it is a big thing I think it just means it is non standard sight.

And it would be 'standard sight' (or astral sight for targeting a dual-natured being) that's required for spell targeting, and as per the rules, the cyber eyes would count as being 'standard'.

[Ryo]

Oh god, not this argument again. This thing lasted a good dozen pages last time.

According to the rules, UWB Radar implants qualify as vision, as they are susceptible to vision modifiers in the same manner as ultrasound. And according to SR4A, if you pay for it with essence, it is a part of you, and can be used to cast.

That being said, IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE DISCRETION OF YOUR GM WHETHER OR NOT THIS WORKS. Period. Full Stop. No further discussion. The rules as written are vague and using Radar for LOS is neither expressly allowed nor forbidden, so it is entirely up to your GM to decide whether or not it works.

Continuing discussion in this thread is simply the opinion of the posters, and not backed up by any rules. Unless one of them happens to be your GM, their word on the matter is no more useful than your own best guess.

If you really want to see the full extent of the argument for and against, just read one of the several old threads. I highly doubt anyone is going to say anything here that wasn't already said there.

http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=6834.0

http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=6838.0

and the tangentially related, http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=6867.0

[All4BigGuns]

Oh god, not this argument again. This thing lasted a good dozen pages last time.

According to the rules, UWB Radar implants qualify as vision, as they are susceptible to vision modifiers in the same manner as ultrasound. And according to SR4A, if you pay for it with essence, it is a part of you, and can be used to cast.

That being said, IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE DISCRETION OF YOUR GM WHETHER OR NOT THIS WORKS. Period. Full Stop. No further discussion. The rules as written are vague and using Radar for LOS is neither expressly allowed nor forbidden, so it is entirely up to your GM to decide whether or not it works.

Continuing discussion in this thread is simply the opinion of the posters, and not backed up by any rules. Unless one of them happens to be your GM, their word on the matter is no more useful than your own best guess.

If you really want to see the full extent of the argument for and against, just read one of the several old threads. I highly doubt anyone is going to say anything here that wasn't already said there.

http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=6834.0

http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=6838.0

and the tangentially related, http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=6867.0

Hmm...and the one who started both of the first two threads is the same one most vocally insisting on that interpretation here. Coincidence? I think not.

[Ryo]

Yeah, I doubt it's a coincidence. And those are just the ones I personally posted in. I'm sure there are even more topics about the exact same argument, but it always boils down to 'ask your GM.'

[Blue_Lion]

First most of what you say is based on bias over what "see' means.

And your stubbornly refusing to understand that there is quite a difference between see and "see".

There is a difrence but the difrence is never defined clearly. You think it is a big thing I think it just means it is non standard sight.

And it would be 'standard sight' (or astral sight for targeting a dual-natured being) that's required for spell targeting, and as per the rules, the cyber eyes would count as being 'standard'.

No the rules say what is required to with cyberware is to spot the object and be paid for with essence. you can spot with non standard site.

[Blue_Lion]

Yeah, I doubt it's a coincidence. And those are just the ones I personally posted in. I'm sure there are even more topics about the exact same argument, but it always boils down to 'ask your GM.'

I have said that in the end it is up to the GM, because there is no clear no. Many people come off with a clear no but have yet to provide a clear no by the rules. Orginaly I posted the first topic to argue deviels advicate to get help findingthe clear no I could not find. Then it boiled down into what is sight so I started the second one. Also I posted the orginal topic in this one, and advised that it might help to read it and see if there is anything new to add. Instead most the no people are basicaly rehashing what has already been covered in great detail.

Let me ask you this is it a coincidence that some one that has seen and researched this issue at least once before said basicaly the same thing as me?

Now I have reserched and debated this in depth before, so I had a problem with people tring to pass off their opiions as facts so I chimed in.

[Falconer]

Despite the fact that the previous line developer whose opinion is far more authoritative than yours have come out before and strongly denied that your opinion is correct for the setting.   

No this is simply you, trying to pervert the rules to be something they aren't.   Then taking issue with others stating the rules as they are.

Arguing metamechanics does not change that the rules do not support this nor are they intended to support this.


The simple end of it, is the previous line developer himself has come out and said these are not visual senses and cannot be used for spell targeting.  (ultrasound and later UWB).   Note I said VISUAL senses... they're not vision... they're RADAR, SONAR... while they can be processed into a visual image... they are not visual senses themselves.  The rules for spellcasting a LOS spell deal solely with visual senses... not with touch... not with non-visual senses.

[Blue_Lion]

Despite the fact that the previous line developer whose opinion is far more authoritative than yours have come out before and strongly denied that your opinion is correct for the setting.   

No this is simply you, trying to pervert the rules to be something they aren't.   Then taking issue with others stating the rules as they are.

Arguing metamechanics does not change that the rules do not support this nor are they intended to support this.


The simple end of it, is the previous line developer himself has come out and said these are not visual senses and cannot be used for spell targeting.  (ultrasound and later UWB).   Note I said VISUAL senses... they're not vision... they're RADAR, SONAR... while they can be processed into a visual image... they are not visual senses themselves.  The rules for spellcasting a LOS spell deal solely with visual senses... not with touch... not with non-visual senses.

Do you have a link or a direct quote from a book? This is the second time I have asked for this. If you want to present something as fact back it up with a credible sitation. If not this is a irelvent statment.

By the way most people that are agaist are often saying the rules say things that if you read them as writen they do not say. The abilty of cyberware to see threw walls has apeared in previous edtions. So the rules as writen do not say it has to be what you are claiming and I have not found anything that clearly says radar and sonar do not cound.

[Falconer]

Synner was the line developer at the time.   This was before the SR4 forums here were established.

Unfortunately the exact discussion is pre-crash... (the board had a big crash and lost its archives).   But this is commonly referenced in threads over there.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=29435&st=25
Tyro references it... Muspellsheimr was one of the better rules lawyer til he disappeared as well, always fun to spar with.

But some of the other old grognards remember this as well.  Unlike jmhardy... Synner was actually fairly active in the forum in addressing questions of unclear rules.   A lot of that showed up when SR4a was published.

[Blue_Lion]

Synner was the line developer at the time.   This was before the SR4 forums here were established.

Unfortunately the exact discussion is pre-crash... (the board had a big crash and lost its archives).   But this is commonly referenced in threads over there.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=29435&st=25
Tyro references it... Muspellsheimr was one of the better rules lawyer til he disappeared as well, always fun to spar with.

But some of the other old grognards remember this as well.  Unlike jmhardy... Synner was actually fairly active in the forum in addressing questions of unclear rules.   A lot of that showed up when SR4a was published.

So there is no way to check the validy of the claim or in what capacity it was stated. So basicaly it is people recall but can't prove, So in this discution it is irelevent as it needs to be proved.

Even beeing a line devleoper needs to be wayed as to how involved he was with the rules in question and how they where made.