[X] My Assistant

[DireRadiant]

The Books of Things not in SR4 is large and infinite, don't make me hit you with it. It will hurt you.

[masterofm]

"Dear Santa,

Please, please don't bring me any gifts. The bicycle you fired at me last year from your bicycle gun really tore up my insides."


- Futurama - a tale of two santas

[fool]

A swiss mountain army bike could pretty easily have a mortar launcher on it.

[fool]

seriously though. One of the reasons that I think there should be some sort of "canon" rules for bikes is that I could easily envisage a bike with a flexible mount on the handle bars (or in the case of a recumbent, on the front end of the frame) holding up to a smg. Controlled wirelessly of course.

[b1ffov3rfl0w]

Let me put it this way. We see a man running out into the street only to be hit by a car changing lanes only a few short seconds ago. On one hand, the driver could have purposefully changed lanes in order to strike the pedestrian. On the other hand, the driver could have been not paying attention, and was merely changing lanes. How do you decide if this was murder or an accident?

How do *I* decide? A lengthy and exhaustive trial, of course. How does the magic power decide? It doesn't. It just protects against accidents.

It's like how magical (or mundane) lightning doesn't analyze the target, see that there are some electronics, and then decide to short them out -- it just shorts out electronics that are there.

[fool]

I'd say it was vehicular homicide if it was by accident, murder 1 if intentional.

[b1ffov3rfl0w]

Really "vehicular homicide" applies to anything where a person is killed with a vehicle, whether or not there's a crime.

[fool]

if someone is killed that's the crime.
Just like man slaughter, but with a vehicle
.

[Link]

The Rigger Black Book has the Dodge Scoot and Entertainment Systems Papoose. Both are electric but have pedal speeds of 5/21 and 7/21. The decker comments are "For munchkins only" and "Well, if y'all's desperate". Sounds like this thread ;)

[Tarantula]

Again, you're missing the point. What is the difference between purposefully running someone down, and running someone down 'accidentally'? Intent. In order for the guard power to understand the difference between a driver purposefully running someone down and accidentally running someone down would call for the power to judge the intent of the driver.

You're the one missing the point. An example given in the guard power is that it can save someone from drowning. It doesn't matter why they're drowning, it will save them. Whether thats because they're 4 years old, and don't know how to swim, and were just trying to get their ball out of the pool, or because they're suicidal, and tied their feet up to an anvil, and threw it in a very deep river. Either way, the power will prevent the from drowning.

Let me put it this way. We see a man running out into the street only to be hit by a car changing lanes only a few short seconds ago. On one hand, the driver could have purposefully changed lanes in order to strike the pedestrian. On the other hand, the driver could have been not paying attention, and was merely changing lanes. How do you decide if this was murder or an accident?

Did the driver utilize the ram action to attack the pedestrian? If yes, the guard power doesn't help. If its because the GM decided so, its an accident.

Stepping on a ledge, however, calls for no decisions. Why doesn't the ledge break when you step upon it? Because the guard power reinforces its strength. It didn't need to make that decision because the guard power would reinforce where you step automatically, even if you were on completely solid footing.

Who says that it has to reinforce where you step? It could make you slip on some pebbles just before you set your foot down, making you fall on your ass. Your leg hits the fragile parts of the ledge, and they go tumbling down. You narrowly avoid falling because you slipped just before the fragile part. Guard and accident are so creatively based powers, you can't really use one specific example for how they will work.

Finally, the Detect Enemies wouldn't detect someone accidentally about to run you over because the driver doesn't intend to cause harm towards the subject of the spell, and not because you aren't an 'enemy'. The term 'enemy' is a concept thought up by intelligent beings, and you have to apply judgement to determine if someone is an 'enemy'. Magic can't make decisions. What it can do is this:



So, again, you're granting magic intelligence when it has none. It's like computers. People think that computers are smart when they aren't. Computers appear smart because they've been given instructions, but they can't judge those instructions. Magic is a lot like that,except that it doesn't have the benefit of allowing huge amounts of instructions that grant it limited decision making ability.

No, the Core Rulebook gave the magic that intelligence. The book says that the spell detects enemies with hostile intentions. If you don't like that, house rule it, but HE didn't give the spell that power, the game creators did.

[b1ffov3rfl0w]

if someone is killed that's the crime.
Just like man slaughter, but with a vehicle
.

Right, but the term "homicide" applies whenever someone is killed, whether they're murdered or they're killed accidentally or in self-defense or defense of others. Like if you're driving and some guy jumps out in the street with a hockey mask and a chainsaw, and you're like AAAAAA! and you run him over, it could be vehicular manslaughter because you thought he was some crazy guy with a chainsaw who was going to kill you, and you were defending yourself.

On the other hand, if it also happened to be Halloween, and you were stalking your ex, and you'd heard her say that her new boyfriend was going to be dressed as Jason, it could be murder. Hey, crime drama.

[Larme]

Magic does have a funny kind of intelligence. It knows when you implant a cyberarm into your body, versus when someone just cuts you open and inserts a cyberarm into the wound. It knows when someone is your enemy with the detect enemies spell. It knows when an object is a door, versus a piece of the exact same material in the same shape, when you cast shatter door. It knows when something is a bullet, rather than just a small piece of metal, when you cast detect bullets. It knows when something is broken, and can then restore it to fixed with the fix spell. It isn't an unintelligent force. It isn't intelligent either, but it does have the ability to recognize fuzzy categories of reality that are essentially nothing but labels given by metahumanity. Physically, a door is like any piece of wood. But when metahumans call it a door, the Ram Door spell will suddenly shatter it, even though it wouldn't shatter a piece of wood the exact same size and shape that wasn't being used as a door. It's true that according to physics, there is no such thing as an accident, there is pure cause and effect. But when metahumans call something an accident, it is prevented by guard. When they call it an intentional act, guard won't work. Those are fuzzy categories that this particular power can clearly recognize. If it couldn't, then its very description would be utter nonsense. It would either apply to every unfortunate thing that happened, or it would apply to nothing at all.

[b1ffov3rfl0w]

And then you'd still have the problem of "knowing" if something is unfortunate or not.

[Screamin Demon]

Magic does have a funny kind of intelligence. It knows when you implant a cyberarm into your body, versus when someone just cuts you open and inserts a cyberarm into the wound. It knows when someone is your enemy with the detect enemies spell. It knows when an object is a door, versus a piece of the exact same material in the same shape, when you cast shatter door. It knows when something is a bullet, rather than just a small piece of metal, when you cast detect bullets.

All of these examples are guided by the intelligence of the caster, not some phantom magic intelligence. It detects doors because you have a concept of doors you are 'instructing' the magical force you wield. And I think Shatter (Ram) Doors would shatter an unhinged door sitting somewhere (The exact same material in the same shape with a knob on it) just as good as a hinged one. I would rule it's use even against something like a floating door spirit manifested in a pile of rattling doors. It's the caster's preconceptions that define the parameters of a spell. As for a cyber arm stuck into a wound VS one replacing your normal arm? Thats a silly example. Its the taking over of the nerves and mental impulses that does the essence loss. Not some invisible meta-magical jury of your peers spirit.

[Larme]

All of these examples are guided by the intelligence of the caster, not some phantom magic intelligence. It detects doors because you have a concept of doors you are 'instructing' the magical force you wield. And I think Shatter (Ram) Doors would shatter an unhinged door sitting somewhere (The exact same material in the same shape with a knob on it) just as good as a hinged one. I would rule it's use even against something like a floating door spirit manifested in a pile of rattling doors. It's the caster's preconceptions that define the parameters of a spell. As for a cyber arm stuck into a wound VS one replacing your normal arm? Thats a silly example. Its the taking over of the nerves and mental impulses that does the essence loss. Not some invisible meta-magical jury of your peers spirit.

If that were true, someone could "Control Thoughts" you, make you think something was a door, then make you cast Shatter Door on it. Since the person thought it was a door at the time, the magic wouldn't know any better and would kill it. Or someone could cast Phantasm to make all enemies look like doors, and then another person who didn't know it was an illusion could Ram Door all of them. That's not how it works. It isn't the caster's preconceptions, it's the preconceptions of metahumanity as a whole. Doors are defined collectively by humans, not by any given human at any given time. Same with all categories of things that magic can "recognize." We don't have to call it intelligence, but there's no question that magic can recognize metacategories of reality, things that are merely labels that humans give to reality and have no independent existence. Accidents are such a fuzzy category. There is no physical difference between the movement of a car when someone accidentally crashes into a wall versus deliberately rams the wall. But magic knows the difference because one humanity would call an accident, and the other they would not.

[ornot]

Magic works on the ultimate Platonic ideal, be it a door or not.

[Tarantula]

I have to agree with Larme here. Just because you have a piece of wood the size and shape as a door, but it is currently sitting on some stacks of books, and is being used as a table in some squatters place. Then Ram Door doesn't work on it. It even can have a knob, still won't work. Ram Table would though.

[Kyoto Kid]

...how did we get derailed by a magic discussion here? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/question.gif)

[Fortune]

This is Dumpshock, where any thread is a valid candidate for derailment by a discussion about about Magic (or guns)! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[CircuitBoyBlue]

Magic works on the ultimate Platonic ideal, be it a door or not.

Yeah, I never get anywhere with Magic. It's always adding all these dice and doing wonderful things for all these other guys that just want Magic for it's flash and power, but I never get to initiate, because it just sees me as a "friend." Nice mages finish last.

[Kyoto Kid]

This is Dumpshock, where any thread is a valid candidate for derailment by a discussion about about Magic (or guns)! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

...I'd rather it had been guns... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif)

[b1ffov3rfl0w]

How about magic guns? Can we have a thread on magic guns?

[Tarantula]

I still say the panels wouldn't dent, and lights and such would not break. The car is ARMORED. That includes the windows. If they're all built with at least basic 9mm stopping power on the entirety of the car, I think it would hold up under the motorcycle, and that includes the windshields.

[Larme]

There are no rules for cars running over other cars, so neither of us can claim RAW on this argument.

But I don't think "has an armor rating" means "armored" in the sense of armored cars today. After all, glass has an armor rating, but glass isn't armored. Armor does not mean "is a fighting vehicle that is made to withstand guns," it means "has some ability to resist damage which is represented by the catchall term of armor."

A subcompact has an armor of 6, which is equal to heavy material. You could probably damage heavy material by rolling over it with a motorcycle. But more importantly, a subcompact is not sealed in like a citymaster. It is covered in weak points. It has headlights and windows and such that can be easily broken by a motorcycle. And regardless, to me, even if the car's body could withstand a pistol, that doesn't mean a motorcycle wouldn't hurt it. It wouldn't do any boxes of damage, but it would cause dents and scrapes and generally be not nice. If you want your universe to be one where basic cars act like tanks, go for it. But not in my sandbox.

[DocTaotsu]

A headlight has the same armor as that panel by your legs that's supposed to keep your insides on the inside? No cars have cheap and attractive siding? It's all just armor plate hammered into a nice aerodynamic shape? Armor can't cosmetically deform and still retain it's bullet stopping power?