[Chaemera]

@Bradd, the way I read that section is different. mostly because you left out the sentence preceding your quote which syas "A metahuman spellcaster can target anyone or anything she can see directly with her natural vision". And you also left out the definition of line of sight spells on page 203 which says "If the caster can see the target, regardless of distance, it can be affected". Nothing in LOS spells says you can use touch in lieu of sight for casting them.

The last sentence you quote merely reiterates the combination of options. It doesn't say "LOS can be cast via touch", it says a link is created via either link or touch. They could have expanded and said "depending on whether it is a LOS or touch spell". However, the specific rules on page 203 for range (and even the previous paragraph) make it perfectly clear that LOS isn't cast via touching, but rather, by sight.

This is further reinforced by Street Magic, page 160:

Line of Sight (LOS): The spell can target anything the caster can physically see or assense, regardless of the distance (see p. 173, SR4). The caster may not target anything that is completely behind cover or otherwise obscured. Since the caster only needs to see part of the target, a Perception Test may be necessary to see if the caster can spot enough of the target to cast. Visibility modifiers apply to the Spellcasting Test. Note that full body armor does not “conceal” the person within and prevent them from being targeted.

It specifically says your options are physical vision or astral assensing. Short of something that says "LOS spells may freely be cast as touch spells", the specific rules are pretty clear, LOS requires you see (or assense) a valid target (i.e., see them, or assense their astral form).

[Bradd]

Well as Kot points out, if you can touch somebody you can almost certainly see them, barring situations like complete darkness or blindness. And frankly, I don't see how actual physical contact with your target could fail to establish a mystic link.

Like I said, I see how you're reading it differently. I just don't think of the touch as being in lieu of line of sight. I think the intent of the rules is that touch is more restrictive than sight, not that they're mutually exclusive. They didn't lay it out explicitly, but they didn't contradict it either, so I think the FAQ interpretation is fine.

[Chaemera]

Well as Kot points out, if you can touch somebody you can almost certainly see them, barring situations like complete darkness or blindness. And frankly, I don't see how actual physical contact with your target could fail to establish a mystic link.

Like I said, I see how you're reading it differently. I just don't think of the touch as being in lieu of line of sight. I think the intent of the rules is that touch is more restrictive than sight, not that they're mutually exclusive. They didn't lay it out explicitly, but they didn't contradict it either, so I think the FAQ interpretation is fine.

Touch: You have to physically touch the person, but don't have to see them.

LOS: You don't have to physically touch the person, but must physically see them or astrally assense their astral form.

This makes them exclusive, in the sense that, yes, you could touch a person before casting a LOS spell on them, but if you can't see/astrally percieve them, you can't cast an LOS spell on them, regardless of touching them.

[Bradd]

Yes, I totally understand how you're reading it, no need to repeat yourself. I just think the rules are ambiguous, whereas you don't. Furthermore, I think the way that the FAQ & Kot & I resolve the ambiguity makes more sense.

[Gideon]

To address the original post about A dark room and Camouflage.

This example of seeing that someone is present in a dark alley or room is used in Street Magic, p. 114, Astral Visibility, but the idea of targeting them with a spell is not explicitly called out initially.

but it does go further to say...

Since there are no ranged weapons on the astral plane and spell targeting depends on seeing your target, hiding behind physical shadows works as well as hiding behind a vibrant aura.

For me it IS made clear cut with...

 Assencing  is the skill of learning information from auras, astral forms and astral signatures.

Not Astral Shadows in the core RAW (but it is alluded to in Street Mage by example, as astral shadows can hide a target in the astral).

So, Assencing includes discerning auras, astral forms and astral signatures.

 The spell can target anything the caster can physically see or assence...

So, Anything that you can assence you can target.

So for me one would have to find anything in RAW that says Assencing does NOT let you target portions of what you see in the Astral.  (Clearly a pure Astral entity or manifestation would require a Mana spell, e.g. no physical spell could target an astral signature).  But a Physical spell targeting a samurai in a dark room, easily with a -2 for performing aphysical action via astral sight.  But a Mana spell would work with no penalty, unless the Astral Visibility modifiers kicked in (Street Magic, p. 114)

EDIT:

FYI - I do not allow touching to qualify for LOS spell targeting.  So my hypothetical blind shaman has to astrally perceive (ultimate darkness) to target a git he's holding in his hands.

[The_Gun_Nut]

LOS is simply a step up from touch, and is inclusive of the previous range (touch).

Doing it the other way starts bordering on chicanery like the "keyhole single-man fireball."

[Sichr]

Yes, I totally understand how you're reading it, no need to repeat yourself. I just think the rules are ambiguous, whereas you don't. Furthermore, I think the way that the FAQ & Kot & I resolve the ambiguity makes more sense.

This is the point. Rules were witten by people who are not Blind. If you have Blind magician, LOS spells (read: most of combat spells) are useles...unless mage can find another way to targer. If he is capable of perceiving Astrally, I couldnt see the argument that would denny him to use this spells. Otherwise, he would have to target what..LOA (Line of audience What about Ghoul mages. They are alsmost or totaly blinded and can use only Astral perception to see the target. And they do cast bolts and whatsoever...

So I vote for Astraly Perceived/assensed = LOS for physicaly present mage.

[Sichr]

I have another question, thought.

For making a Ward you should only be Awakened with astral perception? There is no skill needed to create the ward? To make an anchor? Do I read it right? With no skill you should create any ward listed in rules? Really?

[Chaemera]

LOS is simply a step up from touch, and is inclusive of the previous range (touch).

Wait a minute... does this mean you think that any LOS(A) spell can be cast as LOS, which therefore means it can be cast as Touch?

Because, that's what you said. Since ranges go Touch -> LOS -> LOS(A), and you're arguing that LOS, being one higher on the totem pole, can be cast as Touch, that only makes sense if you include LOS(A) going down the totem pole, too.

For making a Ward you should only be Awakened with astral perception? There is no skill needed to create the ward? To make an anchor? Do I read it right? With no skill you should create any ward listed in rules? Really?

Correct:

Wards are a temporary form of dual-natured mana barrier that can be created by any Awakened being with astral perception (including spirits and adepts with the Astral Perception power).

[Sichr]

hmmm
I just dont like that idea...
At least there should be enchanting test or something to create the anchor...

otherwise any ghoul in Lagos would have his hut warded...but then againn...it makes sense for dualnatured beeing.hmhmhm...no...I dont like it...thats what they have shamans for.

[thalandar]

Help!!! I am now more confused than ever.  I have read and re-read this thread and just when I think I understand, it eludes me.

I really need a summary of this thread, what its trying to say and what everyone has agree is correct.

The key issue seems to be direct combat spells and LOS in astral, if you can target an aura or not (but living things active on the astral don't have aura, they have astral forms!)
page 191, Auras and Astral Forms

While researching this, I came across this reference;  SR4 page 191, paragrapg 7 :

While astrally preceiving, a magician can cast mana spells at astral opponents.

What am i missing here? what is the big debat about? I am sooooooo lost!

[thalandar]

Ok, so maybe I answered my own question:

Living things, that are NOT magically active on the astral have auras, and cannot be targeted by direct combat spells.  So, I cannot attack a street Samurai, while using astral preception, when using a direct combat spell?  right?  Mage, Shaman, dual natured critter no problem, but mundane no way? Is that the jist of this thread?

[The_Gun_Nut]

LOS is simply a step up from touch, and is inclusive of the previous range (touch).

Wait a minute... does this mean you think that any LOS(A) spell can be cast as LOS, which therefore means it can be cast as Touch?

<snip>

What followed was a really good straw man argument based upon things I never said.

What the Touch or LOS ranges (or even LOS(A), as you put it) really boil down to is whether or not you can perceive your target.  If a blind caster could, for example, touch multiple people, then, yes, the LOS(A) might just work.  Touch is a substitute for LOS because the caster can directly perceive the target via touching him (or his aura, if you want to nitpick).  Touch is the fallback for all casting, although it comes with some penalties (not being able to see hampers casters).

[Sichr]

Help!!! I am now more confused than ever.  I have read and re-read this thread and just when I think I understand, it eludes me.

I really need a summary of this thread, what its trying to say and what everyone has agree is correct.

The key issue seems to be direct combat spells and LOS in astral, if you can target an aura or not (but living things active on the astral don't have aura, they have astral forms!)
page 191, Auras and Astral Forms

While researching this, I came across this reference;  SR4 page 191, paragrapg 7 :

While astrally preceiving, a magician can cast mana spells at astral opponents.

What am i missing here? what is the big debat about? I am sooooooo lost!

That means, that if you are astraly perceiving, you should atack astral forms withg mana spells (physical spells didnt work in astral)

This sentence says nothing about targeting auras etc.

So I stand for this.

Yes, I totally understand how you're reading it, no need to repeat yourself. I just think the rules are ambiguous, whereas you don't. Furthermore, I think the way that the FAQ & Kot & I resolve the ambiguity makes more sense.

This is the point. Rules were witten by people who are not Blind. If you have Blind magician, LOS spells (read: most of combat spells) are useles...unless mage can find another way to targer. If he is capable of perceiving Astrally, I couldnt see the argument that would denny him to use this spells. Otherwise, he would have to target what..LOA (Line of audience What about Ghoul mages. They are alsmost or totaly blinded and can use only Astral perception to see the target. And they do cast bolts and whatsoever...

So I vote for Astraly Perceived/assensed = LOS for physicaly present mage.

[Chaemera]

LOS is simply a step up from touch, and is inclusive of the previous range (touch).

Wait a minute... does this mean you think that any LOS(A) spell can be cast as LOS, which therefore means it can be cast as Touch?

<snip>

What followed was a really good straw man argument based upon things I never said.

What the Touch or LOS ranges (or even LOS(A), as you put it) really boil down to is whether or not you can perceive your target.  If a blind caster could, for example, touch multiple people, then, yes, the LOS(A) might just work.  Touch is a substitute for LOS because the caster can directly perceive the target via touching him (or his aura, if you want to nitpick).  Touch is the fallback for all casting, although it comes with some penalties (not being able to see hampers casters).

1. Never said you said any of it, I posed a "if-then" logical extension of the theory. Namely, exactly what it would mean if LOS allows the Touch, since Touch, LOS and LOS(A) are merely the three tiers of range. If range can be "stepped down" from LOS to Touch, then I see no reason why it would not follow that LOS(A) wouldn't be "stepped down" to either LOS or Touch. It's called consistency.

2. Show me the rule that says "a LOS spell may be cast as a Touch spell". I want book name, page number, and clarity.

Example:

Under the basic Shadowrun rules, such a link requires line of sight or touch.

Doesn't mean anything in this context, since it is countermanded by:

The spell can target anything the caster can physically see or assense, regardless of distance

Which is further limited by this:

though auras of things in the physical world can be seen, auras alone cannot be targeted

So, barring a rule saying "LOS spells can be cast at Touch range", a LOS spell can target anything the mage see with his eyes, or an Astral Form that he can assense, but not things he cannot see, having no Astral Form to assense, which he happens to be touching.