Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: blorgh on <12-28-10/0628:25>
-
I'm all for constructive criticism towards things fans feel CGL is doing wrong, but this particular "sin" is hardly something to lay at their feet.
Street Samurai Catalog, Shadowtech, Grimoire, Fields of Fire, Rigger Black Book, Rigger 2, Rigger 3, Cannon Companion, Man and Machine, Magic in the Shadows, SOTA '63, SOTA '64...there have always been a ton of books that have hardware (and dis/advantages, and spells, and other new gear) spread out between them. There are plenty of old SR1 and SR2 books that had crunch in 'em, and it almost always would've been nicer to have it all in one book, sure.
When you consider how much this trope goes back to first edition, it's a little silly to act like this is something that's just cropped up in the last eight or nine months.
But my point is that there's no "resurrection" taking place. That wasn't a tradition, and then wasn't the tradition for a while, and then now all of a sudden it is, again. That's just always been part of the format. Core book lists core material, and then more specific books come out with more specific gear in them.
It's not something to be resurrected, because it's never been dead. From the very first books released under SR4, that was how it was done. Arsenal, Augmentation, Unwired, Street Magic...the tradition can't "stay dead" because the tradition never was "dead."
Wrong. And you should know better, because you where there:
One of the stated goals of SR4, back in the days of Rob Boyle and Peter Synner, was that essential crunch would be limited to core books and setting books would not contain crunch.
War! is the very first book that throws this philosophy right out of the window and again mixes setting with new must-have gear.
With the concept of Spy Games being similar to War!, this is a truly unfortunate decision to indeed resurrect an unholy tradition that was to be abandoned with SR4.
-
One of the stated goals of SR4, back in the days of Rob Boyle and Peter Synner, was that essential crunch would be limited to core books and setting books would not contain crunch.
Well that goal pretty much allready failed in the planning, when the plan was to have seven core books and pdf suplements for those (other books where supposed to get pdf only supplements similar to Digital Grimoire).
Also a military gear supplement was planned by Synner, as well as bunch of other non core books containing crunch.
So you can't lay lame for those fully on the feet of the new people in charge.
-
Well that goal pretty much allready failed in the planning
Strange enough, for a failed plan, it worked out up until War! – the book which focus shifted completely.
None of the setting books had gear included and even Corp Guide did not get special-corp-gear tacked on.
Also a military gear supplement was planned by Synner, as well as bunch of other non core books containing crunch.
Of course, said military supplement had more to do with FoF and military in general than being what War! is now – Bogota plus must-have gear.
-
Of course, said military supplement had more to do with FoF and military in general than being what War! is now – Bogota plus must-have gear.
Yes, but thats just it in IMO WAR failed in exactly the opposite way then what your saying, it ended up having all too much setting info in it.
It only failed the no new gear in a setting book paradigm if you count it as a setting book similar to corp guide, vice and the cites of series, which it IIRC was never supposed to be.
-
Just my two cents but when I think War supplement, I think dedicated to war. How it works, who's waging it, were it's at and whats being used (gear). As for the setting fluff, I could see that being a lower cost pdf. The reason I think setting material is not a big seller is simply the fact it's has a limited shelf life. If you not using that particular setting long term the info has limited usefulness. For that reason I think setting material and game rules need to be separated. Particularly for "core" material like War.
-
Over on Dumpshock, Synner has said that there were to be two books about war: the First, Dogs of War, would be full of crunchy military kit, and the second (I can't remember the name) would be a campaign module where people would get to use that stuff. So wheeling out the originally stated intention of former line developers doesn't really help your case here.
-
Also, please, find me a quote from either of those that said there would never be any new gear in a new book? The goal was to condense things as much as possible, but that was also the goal in SR3. It's always the goal of a new edition, to collect the assorted gear creep that occurs.
PLus, as has been pointed out, War! was planned originally by Peter. The format and content evolved a bit as it went through several other developers, but new gear was always part of the plan.
Bull
-
Over on Dumpshock, Synner has said that there were to be two books about war: the First, Dogs of War, would be full of crunchy military kit, and the second (I can't remember the name) would be a campaign module where people would get to use that stuff. So wheeling out the originally stated intention of former line developers doesn't really help your case here.
Thank you for agreeing that it actually does. You know – separating gear and setting.
Also, please, find me a quote from either of those that said there would never be any new gear in a new book?
Please find me a quote from me that said anything like "never any new gear in a new book".
-
Over on Dumpshock, Synner has said that there were to be two books about war: the First, Dogs of War, would be full of crunchy military kit, and the second (I can't remember the name) would be a campaign module where people would get to use that stuff. So wheeling out the originally stated intention of former line developers doesn't really help your case here.
Thank you for agreeing that it actually does. You know – separating gear and setting.
Then you would hear people complaining that they had to buy two different books to get full use out of either. I like the War format personally. It would be nice if the transition between fluff and crunch was handled a bit more smoothly, but "no est un mundo perfecto."
-
Then you would hear people complaining that they had to buy two different books to get full use out of either. I like the War format personally.
Me too, the book should just have had a little more crunch and a little less sluff
-
Then you would hear people complaining that they had to buy two different books to get full use out of either.
You mean like with War! followed shortly by MilSpec? ::)
-
War! is basically 126 pages of Emergance and 54 pages of Unwired with neither side developed half as well. If you were waiting for an in depth look at the setting as a vehicle for mercenaries and the equipment and tactics they use, you're going to be disappointed. If you were looking for a detail of the war between Aztlan and Amazonia; profiles, the history, the start, the major battles, the warriors and their nationally specific ways of waging war... you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for Bogota: The Location Book and 30 pages of gear that you can really only use about 10 of, then you'll be happy with your $18 purchase.
Separating the fluff and the crunch is a solid development choice. Any table will need both to really be playing Shadowrun, but that way you aren't trying to recall what was happening in the metaplot when x bit of gear got released so you can look it up to see what it does again. It means that people who don't give a lick about Bogota don't have to flip past 110 pages of the setting (an admittedly alternate setting meant for mercs and other military oriented characters) to get to a small section that contains an even smaller subset of high end gear a player can hope to have.
You can never fully take the fluff out of the crunch or the crunch out of the fluff, and you shouldn't try. But War! is a book that's going to sell more copies on the back 30 pages than it ever sees for the first 110, and the development staff are fully aware of that. That's why the rest of the material they had written up for War! but decided to hold back will be sold separately to you in an attempt to double dip a fan bases well known love for crunch.
Also it's good idea to go over to DS and look up the post by Synner that described the original plan for the book that became War!. You'll see the plan for an updated version of Fields of Fire with an eye to the changes that made SR4 and SR4A such a revolution for the setting and mechanics.
-
That's why the rest of the material they had written up for War! but decided to hold back will be sold separately to you in an attempt to double dip a fan bases well known love for crunch.
And you have something to back that statement up as proof, I'm hoping? That contrary to the points made by Critias and others, it wasn't simply a supplemental product developed through a different developmental group and process? Even though that is something which has indeed been done with Battletech and Shadowrun in the past? Is there actually something that shows this was a willful attempt to withhold material ready to be published in WAR! (without changing the price point somehow), other than your supposition stated as fact? Because if so, I'd really love to see. It would certainly be information that the fanbase may want to see.
I understand if you don't like the ideas of supplementals. I can be iffy on them at times myself, but don't subscribe malicious intent unless it is actually there. Note: It may be, I have no idea. I'm just curious what information led you to that conclusion, when the folks involved with the development have shown a very different intent (and information to support the parallel development).
-
That's why the rest of the material they had written up for War! but decided to hold back will be sold separately to you in an attempt to double dip a fan bases well known love for crunch.
And you have something to back that statement up as proof, I'm hoping? That contrary to the points made by Critias and others, it wasn't simply a supplemental product developed through a different developmental group and process? Even though that is something which has indeed been done with Battletech and Shadowrun in the past? Is there actually something that shows this was a willful attempt to withhold material ready to be published in WAR! (without changing the price point somehow), other than your supposition stated as fact? Because if so, I'd really love to see. It would certainly be information that the fanbase may want to see.
I understand if you don't like the ideas of supplementals. I can be iffy on them at times myself, but don't subscribe malicious intent unless it is actually there. Note: It may be, I have no idea. I'm just curious what information led you to that conclusion, when the folks involved with the development have shown a very different intent (and information to support the parallel development).
Mäx has a pretty good summation of how one could assume Milspoec was overflow here:
http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1858.msg20183#msg20183
And actually, I really like the idea of supplementals. But I think a book on a subject in a game line should be the definitive work in the setting until such time as the developer feels they need to refresh it or add to it. Adding to it right away seems like double dipping, Digital Grimoire was timed just right to an aging magic supplement to refreshing things and make the first SR4 core supplement that much livelier. Milspec gear being released right on the heels of a book that featured a section of milspec gear isn't a refresh, if CGL wanted $25 for the PDF of War! they should have put it up for the that price.
I have heard the saying "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity", so I wanted to mention the problem here and see what the people who made the call have to say.
-
Yeah, at some point Jason had a post where he says something like "We couldn't fit everything in one book". That's basically a sales pitch, showing the two books work together, and at this point is now slightly unfortunate wording.
<shrug>
I can assure you the two were designed to be separate products, and that MilTech is not "Cut material". I suppose, believe me or not, your call. Either way, it's not really worth discussing further, since whats done is done.
Bull
-
Mäx has a pretty good summation of how one could assume Milspoec was overflow here:
http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1858.msg20183#msg20183
That reads to me like a very biased interpretation from a single sentence on a forum, that was done tongue in cheek with a bit of in-character flavor. Along with some selective quoting to assume a malice that doesn't seem to be there, a bit like making the information fit the conclusion that existed before the information was even presented. It's a shame there isn't a product description on the SR page (that I could quickly find, anyway), so we could actually maybe compare product descriptions (which I would hazard a guess wouldn't be so short). There's a number of examples across the forums with that tongue in cheek IC flavor, which I'm guessing some of those folks quoted (maybe even Jason, though that's only a wild guess) had a hand in writing. When did that short of flair become a liability?
When FastJack made a joke at some Shadowland newbie's expense in an old SR2 book, was that suddenly evidence of his massive racist agenda? Making that leap on something done with a similar tone, in this instance here on the forums, seems a little specious to me, and quite a bit disingenuous. But I'm fairly sure our opinions on that will vary.
Unrelated, and something I should probably take elsewhere, but this post happened to make me think of it. The issue of getting the SR home page updated would certainly help. The upcoming products page lists some very out of date references, and things like MilSpec seem to have no coverage there.
-
That reads to me like a very biased interpretation from a single sentence on a forum, that was done tongue in cheek with a bit of in-character flavor. Along with some selective quoting to assume a malice that doesn't seem to be there, a bit like making the information fit the conclusion that existed before the information was even presented.
I take offence to that, i didn't make any assumptions and there's no selective quoting, there actually no quoting at all, there's just my paraphrasing of a product description that is completely opposite of what everyone from the company is claiming the product to be and a statement that the description should be changed if it's incorrect.
-
Mäx has a pretty good summation of how one could assume Milspoec was overflow here:
http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1858.msg20183#msg20183
That reads to me like a very biased interpretation from a single sentence on a forum, that was done tongue in cheek with a bit of in-character flavor. Along with some selective quoting to assume a malice that doesn't seem to be there, a bit like making the information fit the conclusion that existed before the information was even presented. It's a shame there isn't a product description on the SR page (that I could quickly find, anyway), so we could actually maybe compare product descriptions (which I would hazard a guess wouldn't be so short). There's a number of examples across the forums with that tongue in cheek IC flavor, which I'm guessing some of those folks quoted (maybe even Jason, though that's only a wild guess) had a hand in writing. When did that short of flair become a liability?
When FastJack made a joke at some Shadowland newbie's expense in an old SR2 book, was that suddenly evidence of his massive racist agenda? Making that leap on something done with a similar tone, in this instance here on the forums, seems a little specious to me, and quite a bit disingenuous. But I'm fairly sure our opinions on that will vary.
Unrelated, and something I should probably take elsewhere, but this post happened to make me think of it. The issue of getting the SR home page updated would certainly help. The upcoming products page lists some very out of date references, and things like MilSpec seem to have no coverage there.
I really only want to speak up about references and in character flair.
In character means just that, taking on a certain characterization. Sections in a book that are attributed to a character should be in character. If they aren't they should be in the character of the book they are in, and thus follow those conventions as closely as the writer can manage and the developer can steer.
Information being stated by the staff of CGL can be said to "in the character of Shadowrun", but that's sort of squishy. In official communication I ask that companies hold themselves to specific level of decorum and professionalism. If you want to get excited and throw some flavor in there feel free, but please keep the facts factual.
And for the record Fastjack runs a hell of a network and has more than earned his chops. When anyone on this board has done as much for the setting as that fictional character has I'll step up and defend them. All I ask of the current croud is that they hold themselves to a high standard of professionalism, maintain a respect for the game and show that in the product they produce.
-
I take offence to that, i didn't make any assumptions and there's no selective quoting, there actually no quoting at all, there's just my paraphrasing of a product description that is completely opposite of what everyone from the company is claiming the product to be and a statement that the description should be changed if it's incorrect.
You're correct. That should have been phrased quite a bit better, and it was just frustration bleeding through on you. My apologies.
MilSpecTech--We couldn't possibly fit all the cool military gear that's available into War! So more of it is in here!
I still don't really see the one-line quoted above, as anything more than a quick post to give an incredibly brief synopsis of the product. Maybe not the best phrasing granted, but that just came off as tongue-in-cheek to me. You know, not all together that different from the tone found elsewhere on this forum when things like "if you people can't control yourself I swear there will be frag grenades going off here in, like, seconds" or "this is where we put up our grown-up voice" or "we don't like you playing other games but we tolerate it." Taken as non-humor, those all sound rather mean-spirited. I don't really see that one line as a product description though, especially compared to something like this:
Attitude
They can have their offices, their paychecks, their 2.2 kids and their robot-trimmed lawns. Screw ‘em. They trudge through life, doing what other people tell them to do, never having an original thought, burying themselves so deep down inside they might never come out.
You’re not them. The world’s not giving you anything, so you’re going to take what you can get. You’re on the streets, on your own. Maybe you’re helping an orxploitation band shoot to the top, maybe you’re climbing up the Street Brawl ladder, or maybe you’re getting famous just for being you. Whatever you do, you’ll do it your way, because dying beats the hell out of selling out.
Attitude helps shadowrunners live the untethered life by giving them the lowdown on music, entertainment, sports, and other scenes where they can make their mark without selling their soul. A repository of Sixth World culture along with a treasury of new ways to run in the shadows, Attitude is an indispensable resource for all Shadowrun players.
That looks like a product description. Reading more into that one line of off the cuff text (whether it should have been phrased better, I'll leave that debate up to other to decide)...I just read that as overreacting a bit. Which apparently, I then did as well. :)
-
That looks like a product description. Reading more into that one line of off the cuff text (whether it should have been phrased better, I'll leave that debate up to other to decide)...I just read that as overreacting a bit. Which apparently, I then did as well. :)
Don't worry about it, Dread. He wasn't talking about the character FastJack in the books. Otaku has an issue with my handle. ;)
-
Hey, FastJack was acting just like his SR inspiration as long as I'm here. I'm going to stand up for him too. He has more than a JackHammer. He has most of the board behind him.
-
Hey, FastJack was acting just like his SR inspiration as long as I'm here. I'm going to stand up for him too. He has more than a JackHammer. He has most of the board behind him.
I've talked to the guy about this, and I hope we see eye to eye.
I'm against it because I personally think it's tacky and takes away from the character. And because it's not clear sometimes that someone is talking about a character or someone who posts on one of the fan forums. Less important to me, but possibly more important to a company that license the IP and operates a forum is that someone who comes to this forum may think that he is an employee of CGL. By that extension making him a moderator is only reinforcing that perception. New players may even think that his particular characterization, or even his true personality, is a reflection of the character in the game. That's a disservice to the character and the material. It's why you should lock certain names before the forum opens so Dunkelzahn can't come in and say "I'm a brown dragon cause I'm made of poop. Poop, poop, poop."
The worst part to me is that I can't even mention it without seeming to attack the person behind the name, who I honestly have nothing against. In fact I wouldn't even have a problem with him using the handle on a different forum. But this forum is about Shadowrun, and Shadowrun in a very real way is about Fastjack. So it looks tacky, and confusing.
Not good.
That's my peace on it in public now so I'll be quiet about it.
-
I could defend my luck of getting FastJack as my handle here and how I've come to earn it the last few months, but I really don't care about Otaku's opinion on the subject and let my rep and history here speak for themselves.
-
Otaku, i get it. You don't like the fact that someone uses FastJack's handle. But most of us here know who the (not)real FJ was. And i'm telling you, our FastJack isn't a lot different. Especially now. And since SR-FJ doesn't appear a lot in any game i can consider not-munchkin-ridden, nor would any sane GM allow him as a contact, I'm sure that someone using his nick here on forums can do no wrong. And as for the 'favorite SR nick as mine' matter, I've seen that everywhere, on DS even, to a lot bigger degree.
And please, keep those toilet metaphors to a minimum, or possibly refrain from using them, if you want to be taken seriously.
-
Otaku, i get it. You don't like the fact that someone uses FastJack's handle. But most of us here know who the (not)real FJ was. And i'm telling you, our FastJack isn't a lot different. Especially now. And since SR-FJ doesn't appear a lot in any game i can consider not-munchkin-ridden, nor would any sane GM allow him as a contact, I'm sure that someone using his nick here on forums can do no wrong. And as for the 'favorite SR nick as mine' matter, I've seen that everywhere, on DS even, to a lot bigger degree.
And please, keep those toilet metaphors to a minimum, or possibly refrain from using them, if you want to be taken seriously.
Eh, I'd rather agree with Otaku here. Especially when the sourcebooks are still being formatted nominally as postings on JackPoint with FastJack taking over Captain Chaos' spot as the framing narrator. Having someone in a position of power on the official forums with the name of a canon NPC that central does imply that they had the company's blessing on however they represent themselves under that name.
-
Wraith, he's a Global Mod. That stands for something.
-
Someone needs to make me a Global Rocker so that we can then fight with switchblades and bike chains...
-
Meh. You're not Ancient enough. :P
As for the topic, i find the Designate spell from War! breaking the barrier between magic and tech. It's at least unnerving, because till now i saw that technology and magic didn't get along. And with Designate you can fool software and break encryption with magic. That's like Hacking with magic. So, the designer of the spell must have found a way to interface magic with technology. Because the usual 'mind-affecting' Manipulation mojo won't work, when you can't see your target - which is not the thing you Designate, only the person targeting. That would be working through a Sympathetic Link, and that's Ritual Sorcery.
And, as someone on TGD forums noted(yes, i registered there during the first War!-related skirmishes), Designate would be a best anti-bombardment defense. You mark a rock, and every artillery unit, or bomber fires at it only. And then you summon a spirit, and tell him to present that rock to the enemy commander...
-
Wraith, he's a Global Mod. That stands for something.
Sure, it means they trust him to enforce the forum rules and help keep this place running in his free time. Unless he's getting paid for it, it doesn't really imply any other formal relationship with the company than a bit of acceptance of volunteer help, neh? ;)
-
Well, this place is as informal as it gets. Even though it's the official board.
-
Meh. You're not Ancient enough. :P
As for the topic, i find the Designate spell from War! breaking the barrier between magic and tech. It's at least unnerving, because till now i saw that technology and magic didn't get along. And with Designate you can fool software and break encryption with magic. That's like Hacking with magic. So, the designer of the spell must have found a way to interface magic with technology. Because the usual 'mind-affecting' Manipulation mojo won't work, when you can't see your target - which is not the thing you Designate, only the person targeting. That would be working through a Sympathetic Link, and that's Ritual Sorcery.
And, as someone on TGD forums noted(yes, i registered there during the first War!-related skirmishes), Designate would be a best anti-bombardment defense. You mark a rock, and every artillery unit, or bomber fires at it only. And then you summon a spirit, and tell him to present that rock to the enemy commander...
OK, haven't read WAR yet. Let me get this straight, there's a SPELL whose effect is to tell sensors "that's the target"? This gives me evil, evil ideas.
-
I don't have War! yet, though i think I'll buy it to see for myself if it's as bad as people say. That's how those who have it describe the spell.
And yes, your ideas are evil for sure. I can't imagine good ones with that kind of magic/tech hybrid.
-
It not only simulates the targeting "dot" for weapons to lock on to, but for some reason, unlike ANY OTHER SPELL IN THE GAME, it restricts the targeting of the spell based off the type of designator being emulated. Designate requires you have thermovision to emulate an infrared dot, or a cyber-radar to emulate a radar designator.
Every other spell has targeting restrictions based off the TARGET, not off the spell effect.
-k
-
And the author posted on Dumpshock saying that he thought the spell should negotiate any encryption on the weapon system in order to feed the new targeting data to it.
I know illusions by their nature "fool" a target, but Designate really crosses a line. It doesn't create false sensor data to misdriect a person or expert system as much as it hacks the node. Something magic simply should not be able to do by the setting. IT also opens the door for Decrypt and Exploit spells.
Got a node with 24 hour encryption running? How long does the spell take to break it? These a re questions that should never come up from official material.
-
DESIGNATE
This spell mimics the effects of a target designator (p. 34, Arsenal). Once the target is designated by this spell, the caster does not need to maintain line of sight but does need to sustain the spell to keep the target “lit.” The hits from the Spellcasting test are used as the net hits added to the indirect fire test when weapons are fired at the target.
This spell can only create a part of the spectrum that is integrally accessible to the caster. By default, this means it can only mimic a laser designator in the visible light spectrum. If the caster has thermographic vision (either natural or implanted, but not via imaging device), the spell may also act as an infrared designator. If the caster has an implanted radar sensor, the spell may mimic radar and microwave (maser) designators.
TARGET DESIGNATORS
Target designators are used to mark an enemy with reflected energy, allowing weapons equipped with seeker gear to home in on a target (see Indirect Fire, p. 162) . Each has a Signal rating from 1-6. Their Signal rating determines their range.
I think the problem is everyone thinks Designators "tell" the weapon where to fire. They don't. The weapon has Seeker gear to find the designator and home in on it. This is in use today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb). All the target designators do are "paint" the targets with their laser light, and the bomb's seeker equipment searches the area for the reflected light of that laser pointer. So all the spell is doing is creating a Laser/Thermo/Radar "painter".
-
DESIGNATE
This spell mimics the effects of a target designator (p. 34, Arsenal). Once the target is designated by this spell, the caster does not need to maintain line of sight but does need to sustain the spell to keep the target “lit.” The hits from the Spellcasting test are used as the net hits added to the indirect fire test when weapons are fired at the target.
This spell can only create a part of the spectrum that is integrally accessible to the caster. By default, this means it can only mimic a laser designator in the visible light spectrum. If the caster has thermographic vision (either natural or implanted, but not via imaging device), the spell may also act as an infrared designator. If the caster has an implanted radar sensor, the spell may mimic radar and microwave (maser) designators.
TARGET DESIGNATORS
Target designators are used to mark an enemy with reflected energy, allowing weapons equipped with seeker gear to home in on a target (see Indirect Fire, p. 162) . Each has a Signal rating from 1-6. Their Signal rating determines their range.
I think the problem is everyone thinks Designators "tell" the weapon where to fire. They don't. The weapon has Seeker gear to find the designator and home in on it. This is in use today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb). All the target designators do are "paint" the targets with their laser light, and the bomb's seeker equipment searches the area for the reflected light of that laser pointer. So all the spell is doing is creating a Laser/Thermo/Radar "painter".
Sure, but how does a weapon know which painted target is the one to fire on? If that was true anyone with a designator of any type could simply point it at a rock and defeat all indirect fire in an area that uses that type of designator. And you would think that by 2072 they have compensated for having multiple designators by linking the designator and the weapon by the wireless networking gear both have by default.
I'll also stress that Aaron posted on Dumpshock (http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33816&st=0&p=1023613&#entry1023613 (http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33816&st=0&p=1023613&#entry1023613)) to clarify this as well.
So yes, he's aware that it talks to the weapon and the target, and that it decrypts in order to fool the pilot or system of the weapon. That's bad mechanics, goes against the rules of sorcery as laid out in Street Magic and sets a scary precedent for spells that hack.
It's one thing to make a spell that mimics the physical activity of a designator, that would be fine. But the part that gets a weapon to use that designation as a target is hacker territory and should be well outside the scope of any spell.
-
If the spell mimics the way designators work, how the hell does it know what's the code? It can't in some miraculous way copy something that the mage cannot know, like the enemy's code. As for his own, yeah, but that would probably call for a test, let's say Logic+Electronic Warfare, to remember the code, or to copy it from commlink into memory.
-
Sure, but how does a weapon know which painted target is the one to fire on? If that was true anyone with a designator of any type could simply point it at a rock and defeat all indirect fire in an area that uses that type of designator. And you would think that by 2072 they have compensated for having multiple designators by linking the designator and the weapon by the wireless networking gear both have by default.
I'll also stress that Aaron posted on Dumpshock (http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33816&st=0&p=1023613&#entry1023613) to clarify this as well.
So yes, he's aware that it talks to the weapon and the target, and that it decrypts in order to fool the pilot or system of the weapon. That's bad mechanics, goes against the rules of sorcery as laid out in Street Magic and sets a scary precedent for spells that hack.
It's one thing to make a spell that mimics the physical activity of a designator, that would be fine. But the part that gets a weapon to use that designation as a target is hacker territory and should be well outside the scope of any spell.
The weapon knows by the Seeker hardware/software installed into it. To fix the issue of multiple designators, you could do something as simple as make sure to use a very specific wavelength of the spectrum being used. The software could then "dial-in" to just focus on that wavelength, ignoring all others it sees.
By linking the designator and seeker hardware through a wireless link, you then open it up so that any hacker could jam/redirect the designation as well. Not to mention that be creating a wireless link between the designator and seeker, you no longer need a visual spectrum designator to direct the incoming fire, since a wireless link could simply send updated position (either GPS or something similar) information to the seeker hardware.
As for encryption? I haven't seen anything about Designators having Encryption, merely a Signal rating. Designators do not "talk" to anything. The biggest thing I can think of to have Seeker-type weapons having some kind of encryption between the designator and the weapon would be to using a specific wavelength and possibly having the designator firing in nano-second "pulses" (akin to a Morse-code/fiber-optic communications).
-
Yeah, I really don't see where this issue is coming from. I'm not a fan of the type of designator being restricted to a part of the spectrum the caster can "see" in, but that's a side complaint. I don't see how this spell does anything that a tech-based designator doesn't.
-
Sure, but how does a weapon know which painted target is the one to fire on? If that was true anyone with a designator of any type could simply point it at a rock and defeat all indirect fire in an area that uses that type of designator. And you would think that by 2072 they have compensated for having multiple designators by linking the designator and the weapon by the wireless networking gear both have by default.
I'll also stress that Aaron posted on Dumpshock (http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33816&st=0&p=1023613&#entry1023613) to clarify this as well.
So yes, he's aware that it talks to the weapon and the target, and that it decrypts in order to fool the pilot or system of the weapon. That's bad mechanics, goes against the rules of sorcery as laid out in Street Magic and sets a scary precedent for spells that hack.
It's one thing to make a spell that mimics the physical activity of a designator, that would be fine. But the part that gets a weapon to use that designation as a target is hacker territory and should be well outside the scope of any spell.
The weapon knows by the Seeker hardware/software installed into it. To fix the issue of multiple designators, you could do something as simple as make sure to use a very specific wavelength of the spectrum being used. The software could then "dial-in" to just focus on that wavelength, ignoring all others it sees.
By linking the designator and seeker hardware through a wireless link, you then open it up so that any hacker could jam/redirect the designation as well. Not to mention that be creating a wireless link between the designator and seeker, you no longer need a visual spectrum designator to direct the incoming fire, since a wireless link could simply send updated position (either GPS or something similar) information to the seeker hardware.
As for encryption? I haven't seen anything about Designators having Encryption, merely a Signal rating. Designators do not "talk" to anything. The biggest thing I can think of to have Seeker-type weapons having some kind of encryption between the designator and the weapon would be to using a specific wavelength and possibly having the designator firing in nano-second "pulses" (akin to a Morse-code/fiber-optic communications).
Alright, reading through the section on indirect fire from Arsenal, I see the confusion. There is Information-Guided where a spotter feeds targeting data directly to a weapon using a adds hits from a sensor test, and there is Designator-Guided where hits on an attack test with a designator add to the indirect fire test.
Aaron didn't do anyone any good with his post though, and appears to have mixed them up as well because designator-based indirect fire should have nothing to do with encryption. There are also no rules for mimicking or spoofing designator-based indirect fire that I found.
-
My main concern is, as mentioned elsewhere, ritual magic, especially with the proper metamagics. Got an enemy? Let's use radar as an example here, because its easier. Build a sympathetic link or similar and cast a Force (presumably Signal) 6 or higher on your target. Meanwhile your Rigger's Tower is floating around the city, loaded with Heimdalls. If your opponent isn't in a radar blind, he takes a bunch of missiles to the face as soon as the Tower blunders into the target's Signal range. Forget the to-hit bonuses from specialized hardware just command all the missiles to aim for the designator once it reaches or rises above ground level. If your target is in a radar blind, he has to come up with counterspelling before leaving it or the same thing happens.
Total Investment - One mage of Initiate level 1+ with appropriate Lodge, Sympathetic Linking, Designate spell and Magic+Ritual>10 and
One Rigger with less than 50k worth of drones.
Net result - 10 High Explosive Missiles up the nose of someone whose location is unknown at the start of the ritual fired from 10-15 km away (based on Heimdall fuel and Signal 6-7). stagger the launches just a bit and you could pretty well cut a tunnel into the Aztechnology Pyramid to take out a target inside it.
None of the other stuff is Milspec or even especially rare. If the Heimdalls seem like overkill, replace them with a network of spy drones patrolling the air looking for the signal. Either way its pretty scary compared to Detect Individual.
-
Either way its pretty scary compared to Detect Individual.
Why is it scary compared to Detect Individual or even more spesifically how is it any scarier than a ritual cast combat spell, that just straight kills the target.
-
Specifically it works at double the range of a long range Detect Individual spell (both at Force 6) and that range is based on any
drone thing with an appropriate sensor type that knows what to look for instead of the caster specifically. You don't even need a Rigger, per se, just a handful of arial drones with a patrol pattern. As for combat spells, it comes down to utility. For a straight up kill, a combat spell would probably be more effective most times. In a WAR! setting, (or a gang slaughtering one for that matter) the difference between being able to pop one fireball and being able to target dozens of drone missiles becomes significant. Against hard targets there's a big difference between one area blast at DV 12 and ten at DV 14 that can be used in a spread pattern.
-
Wait. Even a laser designator uses 'encryption', by providing a specific pulse-code to the receiving missile/artillery unit. How does the spell do that?If it mimics the effect of a target designator, then it has to 'know' that code somehow. That means the mage has to know it, or magic finds a way to interface itself with technology.
P.S. Wouldn't it be easier to use a Guidance spirit? ;P
-
I just can't help but picture a circle of mages (or one IE) on call to the Corporate Court with this spell. Sentence is levied, ritual is conducted, Thor carries out the sentence on the designated target. Its not a supremely hideous, game breaking spell but it is a game changing spell in terms of what people have to account for. Its one more thing that has to be secured against like leaving DNA at the scene, erasing tags, sealing things to get by an explosives sniffer etc. The only upside for the non-magical is that they can tell when they've been Designated if they have the right sensors. They still can't necessarily make it go away but they can get somewhere shielded.
Mages with any sort of unusual sense (especially radar) and matching drones just got much more valuable.
-
Since the spell mimics the actual designator, making it so the seeker hardware in the bomb/missile can see and use it, I'd say that means that any countermeasures out there for normal designators also work equally well against it. Just like if your drone's Sensor rating is high enough, it can resist an Improved Invisibility spell.
-
I'm still waiting for an answer as to why this spell needs cyberware to fully work.
What other spell bases it's targeting modifiers on the spell effect, instead of the target, like Designate does?
It's like requiring a cyberear for a Clairaudience spell. Shadowrun magic does not work this way.
-k
-
The way I understand it, it requires the cyberware so it can mimic the Radar designator only. If you have natural Thermographic vision, then you can mimic the infrared spectrum. For you to mimic the designator, it has to be in a visual frequency that you can see.
Without the cyberware to mimic Radar, it would be akin to asking a person born blind to paint a rainbow.
-
Wait. Even a laser designator uses 'encryption', by providing a specific pulse-code to the receiving missile/artillery unit. How does the spell do that?If it mimics the effect of a target designator, then it has to 'know' that code somehow.
Just like anybody using a mundane target designator has to know which code to send. And before you say "the designator does it automatically": The rules do not require a wireless connection to the firing crew, a lpremade list of codes, or anything in this direction. If you want to blame the person(s) who wrote the Designate spell, blame them for building upon pre-established rules which require some GM interpretation.
The only difference for a mage is that he needs to convert the code "ABC" into the physical signal "dit-dit-dat" on carrier frequency X with basenband encoding Y. Not exactly rocket science, although a roll on EW + Logic or something sounds reasonable.
-
You don't need the cyberware. You need a radar/thermovision sense gained by Detection magic. :)
-
Rules for regular target designators in Arsenal (pages 34 and 162) nowhere state the designator and the seeker head to establish a common code prior to the attack or maintain a link to do so. Which imply either easy scrambling on the battlefield nor instanteous data transmission that break the law of physics.
On my own, I'd just tweak the spell, and say the seeker head has to be programed to search for a signal the mage is able to emulate, which must remain simple enough (and thus would be also more vulnerable to scrambling than regular designators).
-
The way I understand it, it requires the cyberware so it can mimic the Radar designator only. If you have natural Thermographic vision, then you can mimic the infrared spectrum. For you to mimic the designator, it has to be in a visual frequency that you can see.
Without the cyberware to mimic Radar, it would be akin to asking a person born blind to paint a rainbow.
Except, no other spell operates like this.
All the other spells base their limitations and targeting restrictions on the TARGET. Like, "Do you have line of sight?" or "Is the target the right category?" or "do I have to overcome OR?"
Not on the spell effect.
You can generate a wave of toxic slime, or listen to a conversation a mile away, or any number of other "it just works" effects, but somehow making a point radiate radio energy is restricted by whether or not you can perceive radio waves?
Heck, "Pulse" from Street Magic also creates an electromagnetic emission point, but somehow doesn't require a radar or other radio sense.
On a related note, as an illusion spell, you have to beat your own sensor's Object Resistance just for your sensor to even see the Designate effect.
Personally, I have no issues with the IDEA behind the spell. I don't even mind if the caster wants to modulate the strength of the designator dot in a pre-arranged pattern so the weapon sensor can tell it apart from other designator dots. But I would A) make it a manipulation spell instead of illusion (because it's ACTUALLY making a point of energy appear, not the illusion of one) and B) remove the restrictions needing special senses to cast the other variants, and possibly make each variant a separate spell.
-k
-
So... I guess the spell's under-powered instead of the game-breaker it was originally thought it was. :P
-
I'm still trying to figure out why a mage would get this in the first place.
1000¥ for an Illusion type spell formula (haven't read War, it IS Illusion right?)
Learning time of a minimum 1 day
5 karma
All so that a mage can effectively duplicate a 300¥ (Laser) or a 1200¥ (Mirco/Radar) piece of hand held equipment.
Also it seems to me that considering how inexpensive it is to buy one it would make far more sense to send in an Infiltration specialist then a mage to do this type of work, or is it just movies coloring my opinion that target designation is less used in firefights and more for tactical strikes? Invisibility still makes noise and shows an aura on the astral, Infiltration (been argued at length so I know this to be true) is effective on noise and Astral Perceivers.
I can only think of one single application where this would make sense and this is a situation where a small group needs to designate a target and they expect to be searched for weapons beforehand.
-
Just like if your drone's Sensor rating is high enough, it can resist an Improved Invisibility spell.
Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold (p. 183). They are resisted by Intuition + Counterspelling (if any); non-living devices do not get a resistance test.
-
It doesn't require cyberware, it requires an intrinsic sense appropriate to the one being used. The examples used in the description are thermosense/vision, which can occur naturally and radar which can't. There seems to be no reason, though, that it couldn't be ultrasound or X-rays or any number of other things that can be gained as a sense through SURGE, Adept Powers or cyberware. As to why it requires that sense, probably for game balance. If you want something other than a visible red dot you have to invest either the BP or Essence into it.
Tagz, the main reason I see for a Mage to get this instead of duplicating a piece of gear is that the gear does need LOS at all times. The spell can pop a designator then the mage can walk away secure in the knowledge that the target will continue to be painted like a bunraku parlor employee.
I wonder if generals in corp armies are anonymous or if their command posts are universally mana warded. Seems like it would have to be one or the other to avoid being targeted by the other side's Designate casters.
-
Just like if your drone's Sensor rating is high enough, it can resist an Improved Invisibility spell.
Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold (p. 183). They are resisted by Intuition + Counterspelling (if any); non-living devices do not get a resistance test.
Yes, that's what I was talking about. Since Drones/Computers fall into the 5+ Threshold, I usually let the Sensor rating of the drone (or Sensor + Clearsight) to provide the threshold target that the Improved Invisibility must overcome. They don't get to resist with dice since their dogbrains aren't smart enough to take into account noise and smell in conjunction with sight.
-
It doesn't require cyberware, it requires an intrinsic sense appropriate to the one being used. The examples used in the description are thermosense/vision, which can occur naturally and radar which can't. There seems to be no reason, though, that it couldn't be ultrasound or X-rays or any number of other things that can be gained as a sense through SURGE, Adept Powers or cyberware. As to why it requires that sense, probably for game balance. If you want something other than a visible red dot you have to invest either the BP or Essence into it.
Yeah, my issue is not really the power level, but that it does not follow previously established paradigms on how spells in Shadowrun work.
There are a bunch of written and unwritten rules about how Magic works in this setting. This is a change to that, and it isn't even called out as a specific change.
-k
-
Tagz, the main reason I see for a Mage to get this instead of duplicating a piece of gear is that the gear does need LOS at all times. The spell can pop a designator then the mage can walk away secure in the knowledge that the target will continue to be painted like a bunraku parlor employee.
Rather small benefit. First off I think this sort of attack would be done primarily towards stationary/semi-stationary targets, such as bunkers, power transformers, logistics tents, parked vehicles, etc rather then highly mobile targets such as personnel, but then I haven't read WAR so maybe that's the intent. Also I don't imagine one paints a target unless you're going to have it being shot at in the very near future, so tracking for long periods seems silly. Also, I can walk away from my designator by putting it on a tripod and I can ensure the bunker doesn't fly away by attaching a long range camera to the designator. And at a distance of Signal 6 in potential range (10km) one can be far enough that all but the most powerful of weapons used won't be a concern to the person setting up the designator, and if one is using a weapon of that scale then pinpointing the location exactly is moot.
Sorry, but the lack of logic on this one just makes my head spin. It's sort of like a mage making a spell that holds a portion of his body heat to his body so he can go out in the cold without needing a coat. Why not just wear a coat? This spell seems like that, only your far more likely to need a coat and not have one then you are to need to remotely paint a target for a pinpoint tactical strike and not be allowed to have a designator.
That and the whole thing with it changing the way magic normally works is just weird. Requiring an intrinsic sense? Beyond natural vision of the target in question? Never needed that before. Otherwise there's a whole lot of detection spells and manipulation spells that would fall apart having that same sort of prerequisite. You don't need to see wireless signals to use Interference. So why this one spell in particular? Does it use your cyber to SEND the signal? Just doesn't make much sense to me and given the utility of the spell I don't see why they felt the need to require it, certainly the spell isn't overpowered, so balance doesn't seem an issue.
-
Well, the "wear a coat" comparison is apt for just about every spell. Why learn fireball when you can just carry a grenade?
-
Ok, I have to admit defeat on THAT point. ;)
But the rest still stands.
-
Just like if your drone's Sensor rating is high enough, it can resist an Improved Invisibility spell.
Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold (p. 183). They are resisted by Intuition + Counterspelling (if any); non-living devices do not get a resistance test.
Yes, that's what I was talking about. Since Drones/Computers fall into the 5+ Threshold, I usually let the Sensor rating of the drone (or Sensor + Clearsight) to provide the threshold target that the Improved Invisibility must overcome. They don't get to resist with dice since their dogbrains aren't smart enough to take into account noise and smell in conjunction with sight.
You're either using house rules or you're getting spell resistance mixed up with the perception test. Anyone observing the target of the spell gets to roll Intuition + Counterspelling (if they have it) against the original net hits of the spell to resist it as normal. As long as the net hits meet or exceed the OR of a technological device, any visual sensors it has will not see the target of Improved Invisibility. Devices get no resistance to the spell.
A device that has had it's OR defeated can then try to detect the target of the spell in a perception test, and that would function as you described above. However anyone shooting at the target of the spell who has not resisted it, including devices that have become aware of the target but have ORs less than the original net hits of the casting, suffer a -6 penalty for attacking a hidden target. Perceiving that the character is there and defeating the Improved Invisibility are two different things.
This is important because if a drone that has had it's OR defeated fails to get 4 successes on it's Sensor + Clearsight against an attacker with Improved Invisibility on, it suffers from Defender Unaware of Attack and gets no defense. Since Autosofts are limited to rating 4 and the Sensor rating of vehicles caps out at 6, drones on their own are prone to being taken out by mages. It's one of the reasons I liked the advanced processing mod from War!, it made them less susceptible to this type of thing without sending the Sensor and Clearsight ratings through the roof.
-
The Object Resistance table on p. 183 shows that the typical threshold for Computers/Drones/"complicated" objects has a threshold rating of 5+.
Since your average security drone has good sensors and possibly Clearsight autosoft, I house-rule it that the threshold is equal to the ratings of the drone's sensors and autosoft instead of just saying they need 5 or 6 hits. Yes, it is a house-rule, and I thought I made it clear in my second post that it was. I realized I wasn't clear about this in the original post, and I attempted to make it more clear in regards to that.
I look at it that if the mage can't get more hits than the drone's combined ratings, then something in the nature of the spell tipped the drone off. But since most drones average the 5 or 6 (3 Sensor/2-3 Clearsight), then it comes out about the same as the OR Table's 5+ guideline.
-
The Object Resistance table on p. 183 shows that the typical threshold for Computers/Drones/"complicated" objects has a threshold rating of 5+.
Since your average security drone has good sensors and possibly Clearsight autosoft, I house-rule it that the threshold is equal to the ratings of the drone's sensors and autosoft instead of just saying they need 5 or 6 hits. Yes, it is a house-rule, and I thought I made it clear in my second post that it was. I realized I wasn't clear about this in the original post, and I attempted to make it more clear in regards to that.
I look at it that if the mage can't get more hits than the drone's combined ratings, then something in the nature of the spell tipped the drone off. But since most drones average the 5 or 6 (3 Sensor/2-3 Clearsight), then it comes out about the same as the OR Table's 5+ guideline.
I guess that's where I'm not understanding your house rule, because Sensor and Clearsight shouldn't ever factor into spell resistance. Also, I know what OR is. The 4 I was using was off the Perception table listed under Using Stealth Skills, which are the mechanics you would use to determine if some character is aware of another.
I don't know if you were going for a simplification of the rules, but you're mashing two different tests together.
-
Otaku,
FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.
But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.
-
Ok, I have to admit defeat on THAT point. ;)
But the rest still stands.
The major advantage, as I see it, is the ability to use ritual magic to designate a target of unknown location and unleash hell on him.
An example that is admittedly the logical extreme:
Take a hypothetical terrorist leader whose face and voice are well known. The entire Corporate Court is looking for him but he keeps ducking in and out of caves and hideouts in the middle east. This has been going on for. . .let's say 9 years. Then, on his orders, his organization pisses off an important dragon, one with significant corporate holdings Damien Knight. He calls the one Mage on KE staff with a radar implant and Designate, who overcasts a force 9-10 Designate ritual using an appropriate ritual link. An hour or so later our terrorist leader lights up with a Signal 9 IR designator. An hour after that. . .pick one: Cruise missiles guided by satellite obliderate the site, a corporate strike team comes in to take prisoners, etc. IF the leader has a mage to help with counterspelling or a rating 10 jammer/Thermal Masking bunker then he might survive. It has the potential to make every military engagement a pinpoint engagement since you can target your objective precisely. Sure it requires a spell, an implant and a specific metamagic but what big company would go without one, regardless of the cost?
(note to self: this makes for an interesting ex-Corp mage character concept)
As a normal spell, it has the same benefit as most spells. You can walk in anywhere, through any sensor, and still have your designator on you.
-
Ok, I have to admit defeat on THAT point. ;)
But the rest still stands.
The major advantage, as I see it, is the ability to use ritual magic to designate a target of unknown location and unleash hell on him.
An example that is admittedly the logical extreme:
Take a hypothetical terrorist leader whose face and voice are well known. The entire Corporate Court is looking for him but he keeps ducking in and out of caves and hideouts in the middle east. This has been going on for. . .let's say 9 years. Then, on his orders, his organization pisses off an important dragon, one with significant corporate holdings Damien Knight. He calls the one Mage on KE staff with a radar implant and Designate, who overcasts a force 9-10 Designate ritual using an appropriate ritual link. An hour or so later our terrorist leader lights up with a Signal 9 IR designator. An hour after that. . .pick one: Cruise missiles guided by satellite obliderate the site, a corporate strike team comes in to take prisoners, etc. IF the leader has a mage to help with counterspelling or a rating 10 jammer/Thermal Masking bunker then he might survive. It has the potential to make every military engagement a pinpoint engagement since you can target your objective precisely. Sure it requires a spell, an implant and a specific metamagic but what big company would go without one, regardless of the cost?
(note to self: this makes for an interesting ex-Corp mage character concept)
As a normal spell, it has the same benefit as most spells. You can walk in anywhere, through any sensor, and still have your designator on you.
Ok, see where you're going with this one. I like the idea, but... there are a few questions that as a GM I'd ask my player trying to do this.
But wouldn't the missile need to detect the designator before it can lock on? Just having the designator spell effect on the target does not guarantee a hit, does it? I honestly don't know, I haven't seen the full spell description.
How does the missile know where in the country to search? Shot from orbit? Does your missile have the sensor capabilities to find the designator from that distance? At the very least they'd have to put that missile within 10km to possibly picked up by a signal 6 sensor on the missile. Even with a ridiculous signal 9 range sensor you'd still need the missile to be within 400km before achieving lock on, assuming the spell functions like a regular designator and doesn't automatically control the missile (again, haven't read).
If the man is inside a cave, will it be able to lock onto the designator signal through the rock? There's no mention of penetration of the type of signal used in designating. The radar isn't UWBR, it's just standard radar reflection, then there's infrared and microwave. I don't know about this one.
If you were able to ritually spellcast on the terrorist couldn't you just use ignite or powerbolt on him in the first place? Or control thoughts and have him call the Corporate Court with his location and node passcodes to shut down their systems?
I have to admit, the idea does work better if all you could get for the ritual link is to an object you know to be at the location. But then, the spell is illusion correct? Not Indirect Combat? Then hitting an inanimate object requires beating it's OR. Still, I guess that works, provided the missile can get within range to lock on to it.
I feel sorta sad. I'd like this spell to be feasible. I'm just not seeing it as much more then a fringe spell.
-
He calls the one Mage on KE staff with a radar implant and Designate, who overcasts a force 9-10 Designate ritual using an appropriate ritual link. An hour or so later our terrorist leader lights up with a Signal 9 IR designator.
Just noticed this. The fact that you can ritually cast the spell without needing to percieve the target but still needing the prerequisite cyber makes the concept of requiring the cyber even more bizarre.
-
But wouldn't the missile need to detect the designator before it can lock on? Just having the designator spell effect on the target does not guarantee a hit, does it? I honestly don't know, I haven't seen the full spell description.
Yes, fire control has to lock onto it. However, Signal 8+ will reach satellites and signal 6 will reach 10km. The former can be detected by a big company anywhere on earth, the latter is quite sufficient for a team that knows the target is somewhere fairly specific like Seattle. Also remember that once any of the bad guy's gear picks up the designator, its trivial to pass that information along to ALL of the available forces.
If the man is inside a cave, will it be able to lock onto the designator signal through the rock? There's no mention of penetration of the type of signal used in designating. The radar isn't UWBR, it's just standard radar reflection, then there's infrared and microwave. I don't know about this one.
Again, this is based on the Signal rating. Short form is you need a jammer of Force+1 or similar resistant material. However, the moment you step outside that goes away. This is where my comment earlier about generals came from. You'd either have to be in an EM shielded bunker with wired connections to C&C or behind a sufficiently powerful mana barrier to prevent this sort of thing. A general on the field is meat.
If you were able to ritually spellcast on the terrorist couldn't you just use ignite or powerbolt on him in the first place? Or control thoughts and have him call the Corporate Court with his location and node passcodes to shut down their systems?
Yes. Designate offers you options. You could even opt NOT to attack, just track the beacon for a while, make a note of where he stops and attack where he was.
I feel sorta sad. I'd like this spell to be feasible. I'm just not seeing it as much more then a fringe spell.
I actually agree that it is something of a narrow use spell. The main field use seem to be looking through binoculars and designating a target then sneaking away. Safer than having to keep pointing a laser at something. I'm not even saying that the ritual use is overpowered compared to other spells. It is, however, a serious enough threat that it has to be accounted for. I wonder, though. As pointed out, a mage assassin can use ritual casting to do any number of things just as deadly. Sure the -6 for making your own ritual link is pretty severe but it still seems like the only way high profile figures could survive long term is to either stay under wards or have combat mage bodyguards with them at all times. Designate just happened to be the spell that put that in my mind and it presents the option of backing it up with overwhelming firepower.
-
Otaku,
FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.
But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.
But that is wrong, you need to read the rules. There is a spellcasting test, and it is resisted. Then there is an entirely separate perception test against. Matt is basically saying that he lets his players/NPCs roll a perception check against the casting of the spell to resist it, and that is completely wrong.
It's fine if that is a house rule, but at least recognize that you are essentially cutting out an entire test and allowing mundanes and inanimate objects to resist magic with sensors.
-
Remember, though, the designator has to remain locked onto the target until the guided weapon hits the target (Arsenal, p. 162). If the spotter loses contact with the target, the attack automatically misses and scatters with an additional 2d6 added to the scatter roll.
Satellite-based weapons are aimed using Logic + Exotic Ranged Weapon (Satellite-Based). These weapons have a scatter value of 6D6 x 20m, –50m per net hit.
As for this:Otaku,
FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.
But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.
But that is wrong, you need to read the rules. There is a spellcasting test, and it is resisted. Then there is an entirely separate perception test against. Matt is basically saying that he lets his players/NPCs roll a perception check against the casting of the spell to resist it, and that is completely wrong.
It's fine if that is a house rule, but at least recognize that you are essentially cutting out an entire test and allowing mundanes and inanimate objects to resist magic with sensors.
I am not saying they are rolling a perception check. I am saying that if the drone has a Sensor 3 and Clearsoft 2, then I'm setting the threshold to 5 hits. If it has a Sensor 4 and Clearsoft 4, then I'll set the threshold to 8 hits.
-
Remember, though, the designator has to remain locked onto the target until the guided weapon hits the target (Arsenal, p. 162). If the spotter loses contact with the target, the attack automatically misses and scatters with an additional 2d6 added to the scatter roll.
Satellite-based weapons are aimed using Logic + Exotic Ranged Weapon (Satellite-Based). These weapons have a scatter value of 6D6 x 20m, –50m per net hit.
As for this:Otaku,
FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.
But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.
But that is wrong, you need to read the rules. There is a spellcasting test, and it is resisted. Then there is an entirely separate perception test against. Matt is basically saying that he lets his players/NPCs roll a perception check against the casting of the spell to resist it, and that is completely wrong.
It's fine if that is a house rule, but at least recognize that you are essentially cutting out an entire test and allowing mundanes and inanimate objects to resist magic with sensors.
I am not saying they are rolling a perception check. I am saying that if the drone has a Sensor 3 and Clearsoft 2, then I'm setting the threshold to 5 hits. If it has a Sensor 4 and Clearsoft 4, then I'll set the threshold to 8 hits.
So you're basing Object Resistance off of the ability of the sensors to do their job, part of which is software being run and has nothing to do with the Object Resistance of the drone. Essentially pitting the drone's ability to perceive against the casting of the spell.
That sounds like using a perception check to beat a spell.
How do you determine if the drone, once the spell is resolved, has detected the target of the spell? Do you roll Sensor + Clearsight again?
What if the mage casts a spell directly on the drone? What do you use for Object Resistance then? Why not just establish an OR and stick with it?
These rules are in place for a reason. As a representative of the official forums and CGL you may want to make sure you are totally clear that you know how the rules work. It's fine if people do their own thing, but if they change a rule they should understand how it works normally first.
-
So you're basing Object Resistance off of the ability of the sensors to do their job, part of which is software being run and has nothing to do with the Object Resistance of the drone. Essentially pitting the drone's ability to perceive against the casting of the spell.
Object Resistance is, by definition, how magic will interact with the technology. The more advanced the technology, the harder it is for magic to affect it and the stronger it's resistance is. So, if a corp spends a lot of money on drones to make sure no one sneaks into their compound, then they are going to use tech that is more advanced, making it harder for spells to affect it. QED, better hardware/software would improve the resistance of the object to the spell. In my opinion
That sounds like using a perception check to beat a spell.
No dice are rolled by the drone/computer, so how is it a Perception test?
How do you determine if the drone, once the spell is resolved, has detected the target of the spell? Do you roll Sensor + Clearsight again?
If the Object Resistance threshold has not been met, the drone has not detected the intruder, therefore no further rolls are needed. If, by chance, a security alarm is issued and coordinates are given to the drone for the invisible intruder and orders are given to attack, then I'd have the drone roll Sensor + Clearsight to hit the target. Same as if an NPC had failed the Resistance test and then attempted to attack where they thought the invisible target was.
What if the mage casts a spell directly on the drone? What do you use for Object Resistance then? Why not just establish an OR and stick with it?
Depends on the spell. If you're casting a combat spell or one that affects the structure of the drone, I may use Body + Armor. My opinion is that the 5+ is a guideline to show that those complex objects are varied because of the nature of their complexity. If you come across a doberman drone that's been armored to the max, but the corp skimped on it's sensor package, then Imp. Invisibility is the way to go. Likewise, if they paid extra to increase the doberman's sensors to spot a mosquito at 200m, but had to remove armor to get that bonus, then mages should be sending Fireballs its way.
These rules are in place for a reason. As a representative of the official forums and CGL you may want to make sure you are totally clear that you know how the rules work. It's fine if people do their own thing, but if they change a rule they should understand how it works normally first.
So, your opinion is that, because I am a representative of the forums and CGL, then I'm not allowed to use any house-rules in my game as I see fit. At no point have I said that my interpretation is the official company line.
Now, if you want to continue the discussion of how I house-rule my games and your opinion of my position here at the forums, you can PM me with any questions, complaints or comments. This goes for anyone else as well.
One final thing, Otaku. I'd like to point out that you're posts have disregarded items on the Terms of Service (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=12.0). Specifically, you're consistently forgetting #1, but you have also failed to acknowledge #5*, #6** and #7***. Any one of these violations could have resulted in warnings and bans, but we're being lenient in the application of these warnings due to the nature of the discussions here. If you want to continue breaking the ToS, then warnings will start to be sent out.
* I get you have a problem with my taking the FastJack handle. I also notice you do not have a problem with our other residents that have taken similar handles for their own. I'm letting it go this time that you're using my first name (since I do have my facebook page as my web link), but I'd prefer you didn't. If you want to call me Matt, you first have to introduce yourself (your real name) and (more importantly) earn my friendship. I respect your opinions here, and even agree with some of them, but consistently attacking me because I was made a moderator won't be tolerated going forward.
** Bringing over flamewars and such that have occurred on Dumpshock and issues that resulted from business decisions between former freelancers and CGL aren't appreciated here. Yes, they will come up in conversation because of the nature of the decisions and such, but to consistently reignite the flames at every opportunity is not constructive. Which brings us to:
*** Posts that aren't constructive. Yes, we all have thread drift, go off on tangents or even just give a +1 in support. That's not a problem as long as the poster can also add to the conversations. So far, you really haven't added much besides your opinion on Catalyst's business model.
-
So you're basing Object Resistance off of the ability of the sensors to do their job, part of which is software being run and has nothing to do with the Object Resistance of the drone. Essentially pitting the drone's ability to perceive against the casting of the spell.
Object Resistance is, by definition, how magic will interact with the technology. The more advanced the technology, the harder it is for magic to affect it and the stronger it's resistance is. So, if a corp spends a lot of money on drones to make sure no one sneaks into their compound, then they are going to use tech that is more advanced, making it harder for spells to affect it. QED, better hardware/software would improve the resistance of the object to the spell. In my opinion
That sounds like using a perception check to beat a spell.
No dice are rolled by the drone/computer, so how is it a Perception test?
How do you determine if the drone, once the spell is resolved, has detected the target of the spell? Do you roll Sensor + Clearsight again?
If the Object Resistance threshold has not been met, the drone has not detected the intruder, therefore no further rolls are needed. If, by chance, a security alarm is issued and coordinates are given to the drone for the invisible intruder and orders are given to attack, then I'd have the drone roll Sensor + Clearsight to hit the target. Same as if an NPC had failed the Resistance test and then attempted to attack where they thought the invisible target was.
What if the mage casts a spell directly on the drone? What do you use for Object Resistance then? Why not just establish an OR and stick with it?
Depends on the spell. If you're casting a combat spell or one that affects the structure of the drone, I may use Body + Armor. My opinion is that the 5+ is a guideline to show that those complex objects are varied because of the nature of their complexity. If you come across a doberman drone that's been armored to the max, but the corp skimped on it's sensor package, then Imp. Invisibility is the way to go. Likewise, if they paid extra to increase the doberman's sensors to spot a mosquito at 200m, but had to remove armor to get that bonus, then mages should be sending Fireballs its way.
These rules are in place for a reason. As a representative of the official forums and CGL you may want to make sure you are totally clear that you know how the rules work. It's fine if people do their own thing, but if they change a rule they should understand how it works normally first.
So, your opinion is that, because I am a representative of the forums and CGL, then I'm not allowed to use any house-rules in my game as I see fit. At no point have I said that my interpretation is the official company line.
Now, if you want to continue the discussion of how I house-rule my games and your opinion of my position here at the forums, you can PM me with any questions, complaints or comments. This goes for anyone else as well.
One final thing, Otaku. I'd like to point out that you're posts have disregarded items on the Terms of Service (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=12.0). Specifically, you're consistently forgetting #1, but you have also failed to acknowledge #5*, #6** and #7***. Any one of these violations could have resulted in warnings and bans, but we're being lenient in the application of these warnings due to the nature of the discussions here. If you want to continue breaking the ToS, then warnings will start to be sent out.
* I get you have a problem with my taking the FastJack handle. I also notice you do not have a problem with our other residents that have taken similar handles for their own. I'm letting it go this time that you're using my first name (since I do have my facebook page as my web link), but I'd prefer you didn't. If you want to call me Matt, you first have to introduce yourself (your real name) and (more importantly) earn my friendship. I respect your opinions here, and even agree with some of them, but consistently attacking me because I was made a moderator won't be tolerated going forward.
** Bringing over flamewars and such that have occurred on Dumpshock and issues that resulted from business decisions between former freelancers and CGL aren't appreciated here. Yes, they will come up in conversation because of the nature of the decisions and such, but to consistently reignite the flames at every opportunity is not constructive. Which brings us to:
*** Posts that aren't constructive. Yes, we all have thread drift, go off on tangents or even just give a +1 in support. That's not a problem as long as the poster can also add to the conversations. So far, you really haven't added much besides your opinion on Catalyst's business model.
Hey man, I'm just trying to make sure that you know that resisting a spell, perceiving a target and attacking are all separate rolls with their own opposed tests. Correcting what I thought was an over simplification. You can run the game however yo want, but I know people follow the forums for rules advice and I figured I'd remind you.
Take action against me if you feel you need to. But I think you're letting the fact that we don't seem to like each other much get in the way.
-
Honestly, the whole "not like you" thing seems to be one-way. I'm not going to say I like you, but I don't not like you either. I only bring up the warning stuff because it feels like you're trying to make this personal when it isn't. If I read your intentions wrong, I'm sorry.
-
Honestly, the whole "not like you" thing seems to be one-way. I'm not going to say I like you, but I don't not like you either. I only bring up the warning stuff because it feels like you're trying to make this personal when it isn't. If I read your intentions wrong, I'm sorry.
That's cool. I just saw a rules call that seemed to be out of the norm so I mentioned it.
-
I just saw a rules call that seemed to be out of the norm so I mentioned it.
::)
Well you kinda fail at reading comprehension man, if the fact that its a house rule had to be explained to you about half a dozen times, when it's obvious from the first post that it's only how he personally runs it becouse he wan't to provide a logical system for his players so they can know how the or higher part of the OR will be handelt.
-
I just saw a rules call that seemed to be out of the norm so I mentioned it.
::)
Well you kinda fail at reading comprehension man, if the fact that its a house rule had to be explained to you about half a dozen times, when it's obvious from the first post that it's only how he personally runs it becouse he wan't to provide a logical system for his players so they can know how the or higher part of the OR will be handelt.
No offense, but you might want to give you post a read through if you're going to talk to someone about reading comprehension.
I got thrown off by the fact that the Clearsight autosoft rating was being included in the OR (software running on a device makes it more complex?) and the fact that what he was describing is essentially the dice from a perception test used as OR. I've had to explain to people in the past that you don't resist illusions with perception tests, at least not Improved Invisibility. I figured what was going on was something like that, and it bothered me because Clearsight makes no sense as a factor in that test.
If you want to get into the original post his explanations of dogbrains was also incorrect. You use OR because the drone is an inanimate object, not because it isn't smart enough to resist the spell. However you should really let the man fight his own battles and defend himself.
-
In my view, the way to fix the Designate spell is basically to remove the second paragraph and change the Drain Code to (F/2)+1. That's +1 for a Physical spell, 0 for Line-of-Sight range, 0 for Sustained, 0 for Realistic, and 0 for Multi-Sense. You'd need to beat the OR of the targeting system to trick it into believing that there was really a designator shining there. Net hits would add to the attack roll.
-
I still think making it a Manipulation spell is the easiest solution. No OR needs to be dealt with then.
-k
-
I tried it as a Manipulation spell, and the Drain Code came out to what's in the book (can't remember my working). Still need to excise that whole bit about needing cyberware or natural senses. At most, it should require a Knowledge skill in an appropriate science (so, physics, then) or somesuch.