[Michael Chandra]

Really. Feeding one's Magic directly sounds less as a game mechanic than effective Magic. Despite all the claims in the past from people that they raised Magic directly, because it says right there that it feeds directly into your Magic and makes you more powerful in all forms of magical ability.

This is not a matter of changing the description to change the way it works in a gamechanging manner. This is changing the description in a way to make it more clear than before that the description is just fluff. The exact opposite of what you're claiming.

If you want to read a game mechanic into it, go right ahead. But I think you only read that into it because you want it to read that, not because the reading makes actual sense to you. You're suffering from confirmation bias.

[Shinobi Killfist]

ad hominems away. 

[All4BigGuns]

ad hominems away.

Perhaps. Though the accusation made could be applied to his side as well--that they're reading it as only applying to dice pool simply because they want it to be that way.

[Reaver]

Power foci are the most potent and treasured of all. Possession of a power focus feeds a magician’s Magic directly, making her efforts more powerful in all forms of magical ability. A power focus adds its Force to all tests in which the magician’s Magic is included. A single power focus can increase a magician’s ability to cast spells, call on and control spirits, and bypass astral barriers. A power focus does not help in Counterspelling a hostile spell as it is cast, nor can it duplicate the unique ability of a weapon focus.

Power foci live up to their name. They are very powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective Magic rating. That means they add to your Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting dice pools, [u]along with any other test where Magic is involved[/u[/size]]. Power foci can take any form, but for some reason, rings and amulets are quite popular.[/i]

No significant change, all it does is state the same in other words.

I changed a line up there (bold, enlarged font)

this is the only line that REALLY gives me a pause... and only because of one thing.

Is the check between magic rating and Spirit force a test? or a limiter?

if it IS a test: then it would indeed add to your magic rating for the purposes of drain and Spirit summoning.....

if it is a Limit, then it would not, and you CHOISE to break it at the moment of summoning, and thus incur a penalty. (the physical drain)

now, lets look at how each ruling changes the game.

IF IT IS A TEST:

For the cost of significant Nuyen, and (relative*) small amount of Karma, you can increase your magic rating in leaps, which effects just about everything a mage does.
The only real limitation is that you have to have the foci on you (it CAN be taken), wards can disable it for a time (if forced through a ward), and a small select few other disabilities...
This really limits the power and scope of Initiation. Since you have to buy initiations separately (buy lvl 1, then lvl 2 then lvl 3... you CAN NOT buy lvl1, then buy lvl 3.). Considering that Initiation has always been the PRIME game mechanic for raising an Awaken's potential, it sounds very circumspect that they would include a mechanic that allows you to vastly jump in power for such a relatively* small costs of Nuyen and Karma.

IF IT IS A LIMITOR

Then, the power foci would not add to your magic rating for the purpose of overcasting. Again, given the cost of the power foci, which is considerable, the addition of dice to any TEST using magic is a huge bonus. but not out of the question when compared to the other bonuses enjoyed with the stacking of equipment by other archtypes.... Save, of course the Karma cost... but this is the LIMITOR of being awakened in of itself.


********
If you look at the mechanics in SR they boil down to basically:

<SKill>+<Attribute> +/- <modifiers> [limit] VS  <SKill>+<Attribute> +/- <modifiers> [Limit]


sounds likely that the Power Foci is a modifier to me.

[Shinobi Killfist]

ad hominems away.

Perhaps. Though the accusation made could be applied to his side as well--that they're reading it as only applying to dice pool simply because they want it to be that way.

You can always accuse people. Whether it is accurate or not is another issue. 

Really if they wanted this to be clear it would be written entirely differently one way or the other.Either way it would be one sentence and not a paragraph..

If it actual improves your magic rating it would be a simple.  A power focus augments(increases) your magic attribute by an amount equal to the focus rating.  A second sentence could be added if it was an exception to the max 4 of augmenting rule.

Don't add a this means sentence, just end it there.

If it is just a dice pool mod it should be like a spellcasting focus. Power foci add their force to your dice pool for all tests using the magic attribute.

Don't add any "Fluff" about effective magic rating  or its a super really powerful focus etc, one quick easy sentence. If they felt the need to put the fluff in don't go with this means, go with it only adds to your effective magic rating for the purpose of "adding their force to your dice pool for all tests using the magic attribute"

I do suspect RAI is the dice pool way since 1, this game is more 4e than 2e and 2 you can have a rating 6 power focus and normal augmentation rules would cap it out at 4.(though some argument can be made about it is not actually improved just its effective level so it does not follow those rules).

The RAW on the other hand can be either, it just is not a clear statement. 

[RHat]

ad hominems away. 

You may wish to review the definition of an ad hominem.  The fallacy occurs not when someone says something negative about the other party in course of an argument, but rather when that negative statement IS the argument.

[Shinobi Killfist]

ad hominems away. 

You may wish to review the definition of an ad hominem.  The fallacy occurs not when someone says something negative about the other party in course of an argument, but rather when that negative statement IS the argument.

Which is what he did.  His ending statement was trying to discredit the argument of others based on a perceived bias they had not the argument itself. 

[RHat]

ad hominems away. 

You may wish to review the definition of an ad hominem.  The fallacy occurs not when someone says something negative about the other party in course of an argument, but rather when that negative statement IS the argument.

Which is what he did.  His ending statement was trying to discredit the argument of others based on a perceived bias they had not the argument itself. 

Not quite.  He suggested that confirmation bias is occurring only after offering a counter-argument; the post took the form "You're wrong for these reasons and confirmation bias might be at play", while an ad hominem would be "You're wrong because confirmation bias is at play".

[Shinobi Killfist]

ad hominems away. 

You may wish to review the definition of an ad hominem.  The fallacy occurs not when someone says something negative about the other party in course of an argument, but rather when that negative statement IS the argument.

Which is what he did.  His ending statement was trying to discredit the argument of others based on a perceived bias they had not the argument itself. 

Not quite.  He suggested that confirmation bias is occurring only after offering a counter-argument; the post took the form "You're wrong for these reasons and confirmation bias might be at play", while an ad hominem would be "You're wrong because confirmation bias is at play".

I read his post differently,with the conformation bias line being part of his argument. But it's not worth arguing over.

[Reaver]

ad hominems away. 

You may wish to review the definition of an ad hominem.  The fallacy occurs not when someone says something negative about the other party in course of an argument, but rather when that negative statement IS the argument.

Which is what he did.  His ending statement was trying to discredit the argument of others based on a perceived bias they had not the argument itself. 

Not quite.  He suggested that confirmation bias is occurring only after offering a counter-argument; the post took the form "You're wrong for these reasons and confirmation bias might be at play", while an ad hominem would be "You're wrong because confirmation bias is at play".

I read his post differently,with the conformation bias line being part of his argument. But it's not worth arguing over.

Ahhh, communication, why are you so confusing???

[Arioch]

So is there an official clarification for Missions play on this either way? I can see both sides, and with a mage character I obviously want the cheese to toss higher force spells without taking physical drain  BUT I'm okay with it being just a dice pool modifier.

So really, the only difference between the two arguments, if I understand correctly is when you would take physical vs stun drain because your magic rating was higher due to the foci.

Otherwise, you still get to add the rating to casting test, summoning test, drain test?

[Forrest]

I had this same question, in part because of having played every edition.
In short, my answer is that the text is unclear, and needs to be errata'ed (is that even a word?)
Basically, the text has two contradictory statements.  The first statement is that the focus increases your effective magic rating (a very broad statement).  The second statement is a list of things that the focus adds dice to (a very narrow statement). The second statement does not necessarily negate the first statement, it just lists the things where the magic ratiing adds dice. 
This of course leads to an even bigger question, when will the first round of errata come out?

[Michael Chandra]

I don't think it really needs errata, it was quite similar in SR4. It simply has a fluff explanation and rules on what it does exactly. So there's no contradiction here perse, there's simply a statement that can be taken multiple ways which is then backed up by a statement that explains exactly what it does. The errata we need for rule sections that actually have completely contradicting rules, such as Grenades, Gunnery and whatnot. Not for a fluff explanation that only contradicts if people insist on taking it as the exact rules. RAW is decently clear and RAI is extremely clear here.

If every fluff explanation is taken to be strict RAW, a lot more trouble pops up in both SR5 and SR4, such as Astral Hazing. When reading fluff as fluff and rule explanation as rule explanation on the other hand, these things are rather obvious.

[Reaver]

Michael, do I REALLY need to state the obvious??

[Michael Chandra]

In the immortal deadpan words of the British Port Authorities: What, again?