[Falconer]

Except Joe, that you're the one making the argumentum ad ignorantiam you just blamed others for.   Using big words does not make your argument, especially when you misuse them.  I remember my forensics schooling quite vividly and make good use of it.

Your entire post is based on drawing conclusions from fluff that aren't specified.   Radar is described as a sensor which relies on an expert system to reprocess the data into a visual overlay.  There is a reason "see" is in quotes... and you cannot explain that fact away.


Long before UWB was even published, Ultrasound was the bete noir of this topic.   And even then it was pointed out ultrasound could not be used to cast spells by people in an official capacity on the web boards of the day.

You'll notice that ultrasound is missing from the eyeware section of the rules.   It's only available to external glasses/goggles as a 'visual' overlay mode.   It was intentionally put in the headware section and not kept as an eye mod.

It doesn't matter... ultrasound is an image overlay, no different than an external security camera linked onto your imagelink.   It doesn't work for spellcasting even if you did get it as headware and paid essence.

[WellsIDidIt]

One quick point Falconer. Radar, doesn't just overlay your vision, it overlays the entire visual sense.

Joe, the rules do not state the exact statement "Radar is not vision". It is not needed. They state specifically how radar works. They do not use the word vision. They do not state you can see as you could with vision. They state what it is good at picking up and what it can't perceive.

Cybereyes specifically state that they are vision. This creates a standard. If it is vision, then it must state it is vision. So please, provide one source saying it is. The "It is because the rules never say it's not" argument does not work. Otherwise, I'm going to say that all guns in Shadowrun are Chickens because the rules never say they aren't. Over the top? Yes. It's the same line of thought though.

If you want Radar to be vision, prove that it is guilty of being vision. So far, everything you have put forth, would put Echolocation as being vision too, which is blatantly not the case.

Except for the rule that says Radar works like Ultrasound, not Echolocation - which basically makes everything you just said wrong.

Please actually read the rules. The rules say that Radar "overlays (or replaces) the user's visual senses, similar in some ways to ultrasound."

Wow, suddenly that isn't "it works like ultrasound" at all, it only gives the data to you in a similar way. Oh my...

The other thing it shares in common is that it uses the same visibility modifiers as Ultrasound. Hmm...actually take a look at echolocation (pg. 63 of Aug), specifically the creating a natural ultrasound part. You can have a completely auditory system that "functions like a true ultrasound system."

So, back to you, the burden of proof is in your yard. Where does it state it allows you to see? Where does it state you see everything you would with ultrasound? Why does ultrasound automatically mean visual? Provide rules sources please. Otherwise, it is unsupported as I explained already.

The human brain can only process visual information in one way. You can't say that will change in 60 years - not unless you can show me a rule that says so.

Where does it state that the data has to be passed to the brain as "visual data?"

The rules can't spell out every single detail of the real and game world. If the rules say it works like Ultrasound, it works like Ultrasound unless you can demonstrate where it says it doesn't. If it's a visual sense, it's vision, unless you can show where it says it's not.

Again, provide quotes for:
A) It works like ultrasound. All I can find is that it passes the data to the user in a similar way to ultrasound.
B) It is a visual sense. All I can find is that it can overlay or replace visual senses, or that it uses visibility modifiers. Neither of these say or force it to be a visual sense.

You're right, the rules can't spell out everything, but they can state that it is vision. They did that with cybereyes.

This whole "put a can on a table and close your eyes" crap is simply made up. The rules say it works like Ultrasound. Ultrasound produces a visual image.

The "crap" you refer to is to simply illustrate the difference between vision and visualizing. Obviously it wasn't understood by you.

Again, provide a source that it "works like ultrasound." I can still only find that it passes information along similar to ultrasound. My book must be broken.

Your target is in full Military grade armor with helmet and tinted visor covered from head to toe by armor. You do not see the man inside the armor just the armor. Now you can see his location but you can not see him directly just what he has on.

According to the rules, the aura you would need for a magical link extends through clothing. You can see enough for the link even on an armored target.

I believe the reasoning for that was primarily balance driven, but it does exist. Therefore, there is no flaw in my reasoning. You still see the target (the man in armor) rather than just his location.

(By the way the implant as worded does say it can "see" so it is only your opion that it can not see the target. It may accell at seeing locations and objects detecting movment but it still "see")

What exactly does it say you can "see" Blue Lion?

It says that "it can 'see' through walls and other material, which appear as translucent."

It only says you can "see" in general if you take that completely out of context and ignore the rest of the text. By the rules, you can "see" a person' s location through walls. You still can't see.
Please provide me a single source that states you can see people with radar.[

[JoeNapalm]

Except Joe, that you're the one making the argumentum ad ignorantiam you just blamed others for.   Using big words does not make your argument, especially when you misuse them.  I remember my forensics schooling quite vividly and make good use of it.

Your entire post is based on drawing conclusions from fluff that aren't specified.   Radar is described as a sensor which relies on an expert system to reprocess the data into a visual overlay.  There is a reason "see" is in quotes... and you cannot explain that fact away.

That's my point Falconer. 

And now you're a Forensics Engineer? Fascinating. Never heard of one. I guess they aren't taught about satire or parody?

I was merely arguing using the same rules as he is. Of course it's invalid. But if he gets to pitch anything I say based on reasoning out because there is no citation, why shouldn't I do the same?

And I may use big words, but you - of all people - accusing someone of misusing words?

Wow.

Ultrasound isn't a "pet peeve", by the way. Ultrasound is the basis for how radar output appears, based on the rules.

It is not unspecified fluff. It's right there in black and white, under the rules for radar.

Web boards aren't RAW.

I don't have to explain the quotes away. They indicate a non-standard usage. That is not a silver bullet to the argument, however, because non-standard usage doesn't indicate the enhancement can't be used to see, just that it is used to see in an unusual way. Otherwise, he wouldn't use the word. They would use a different one.

Ultrasound and radar both are visually perceived. Yes they can be an overlay  but you're simply ignoring that it can also replace vision. And that even as a visual overlay, you're seeing what it is showing you, which is the target (which, in this case, is a baby, so make it a nice spell).

And again with the security camera. Where are they ever mentioned in this? The debate on trid cams is played out. Nowhere in he definition does it say "security camera" - it is the definition of all trid cameras and by extension, cyber eyes. Let it go.

It is not the same as a linked camera because it is paid by Essence. That is exactly why it is different, which is why you immediately bring that up - but just saying "it ain't so" doesn't change anything.

And for the last time ( wishful thinking ) it doesn't matter if it is eyeware or headware. The rules state "cyber or bio enhancement" not eyeware. You still see with it, so the DNI has to feed it into the same part of your brain as vision. Before you insist that the brain or supertechnology make this not so, find me somewhere that it says that.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[JoeNapalm]

One quick point Falconer. Radar, doesn't just overlay your vision, it overlays the entire visual sense.

Joe, the rules do not state the exact statement "Radar is not vision". It is not needed. They state specifically how radar works. They do not use the word vision. They do not state you can see as you could with vision. They state what it is good at picking up and what it can't perceive.

Cybereyes specifically state that they are vision. This creates a standard. If it is vision, then it must state it is vision. So please, provide one source saying it is. The "It is because the rules never say it's not" argument does not work. Otherwise, I'm going to say that all guns in Shadowrun are Chickens because the rules never say they aren't. Over the top? Yes. It's the same line of thought though.

If you want Radar to be vision, prove that it is guilty of being vision. So far, everything you have put forth, would put Echolocation as being vision too, which is blatantly not the case.

Except for the rule that says Radar works like Ultrasound, not Echolocation - which basically makes everything you just said wrong.

Please actually read the rules. The rules say that Radar "overlays (or replaces) the user's visual senses, similar in some ways to ultrasound."

Wow, suddenly that isn't "it works like ultrasound" at all, it only gives the data to you in a similar way. Oh my...

The other thing it shares in common is that it uses the same visibility modifiers as Ultrasound. Hmm...actually take a look at echolocation (pg. 63 of Aug), specifically the creating a natural ultrasound part. You can have a completely auditory system that "functions like a true ultrasound system."

So, back to you, the burden of proof is in your yard. Where does it state it allows you to see? Where does it state you see everything you would with ultrasound? Why does ultrasound automatically mean visual? Provide rules sources please. Otherwise, it is unsupported as I explained already.

The human brain can only process visual information in one way. You can't say that will change in 60 years - not unless you can show me a rule that says so.

Where does it state that the data has to be passed to the brain as "visual data?"

The rules can't spell out every single detail of the real and game world. If the rules say it works like Ultrasound, it works like Ultrasound unless you can demonstrate where it says it doesn't. If it's a visual sense, it's vision, unless you can show where it says it's not.

Again, provide quotes for:
A) It works like ultrasound. All I can find is that it passes the data to the user in a similar way to ultrasound.
B) It is a visual sense. All I can find is that it can overlay or replace visual senses, or that it uses visibility modifiers. Neither of these say or force it to be a visual sense.

You're right, the rules can't spell out everything, but they can state that it is vision. They did that with cybereyes.

This whole "put a can on a table and close your eyes" crap is simply made up. The rules say it works like Ultrasound. Ultrasound produces a visual image.

The "crap" you refer to is to simply illustrate the difference between vision and visualizing. Obviously it wasn't understood by you.

Again, provide a source that it "works like ultrasound." I can still only find that it passes information along similar to ultrasound. My book must be broken.

Your target is in full Military grade armor with helmet and tinted visor covered from head to toe by armor. You do not see the man inside the armor just the armor. Now you can see his location but you can not see him directly just what he has on.

According to the rules, the aura you would need for a magical link extends through clothing. You can see enough for the link even on an armored target.

I believe the reasoning for that was primarily balance driven, but it does exist. Therefore, there is no flaw in my reasoning. You still see the target (the man in armor) rather than just his location.

(By the way the implant as worded does say it can "see" so it is only your opion that it can not see the target. It may accell at seeing locations and objects detecting movment but it still "see")

What exactly does it say you can "see" Blue Lion?

It says that "it can 'see' through walls and other material, which appear as translucent."

It only says you can "see" in general if you take that completely out of context and ignore the rest of the text. By the rules, you can "see" a person' s location through walls. You still can't see.
Please provide me a single source that states you can see people with radar.[

So you can't cite a single rule that says it's not vision?

All your claims are unsupported.

Hey, I'm just playing by your rules.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[FastJack]

How in blazes has this not been locked yet?!     

Because I've been feeling under the weather.