@Lurker: Yes, we have no common ground it seems. Rather than bicker and argue further about who killed who, let's not derail the original topic further.

Back on topic.
Outside of using CV to make people injure themselves, what other useful applications are there?

Lurker already dealt with that. Spellcasting and cybereyes is a specific rules exception. Lurker does not agree with expanding that specific rule into a general rule so things like commanding voice work on cyberear people when if they had just gone with earbuds they would be safe.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/2/

Nice (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There's always the old "Break your weapons, then surrender," for pacifists.
...or the less friendly "fuck yourself with your gun."

As to the idea of cyberears making you immune to commanding voice, that's a no. Full cyberlimb replacement doesn't make you an object.
What does work is a cheap little thing called Select Sound Filter, though you'd either need it on hyper-paranoid "don't talk to stranger" settings, or you'd need to have a sample of the adept's voice (from their first command,) and take a simple action to Send a Command to a Linked Device.

The idea isn't that it makes you an object. It is base don the text of the power that says the voice can't go through electronics. The ears are in fact electronics. Though some want to use the you paid essence with it so it is natural not electronic argument, some don't. I'm amused that simple earbuds that I put on every character will stop this cold.

And so are cybereyes.

And cyberarms work for touch-spells.

I'm afb but do they? And once again the rules of the power (NOT SPELL) say electronics don't work. Nothing in the fluff or the rules for 4th say that just because something is cyber and paid with essence means it stops being something else.

Paging Dr. Toturi.

Who?

In any case, I'll invoke Occam's Razor.

So you agree with me? Because that would be Occam's Razor. That it works as it's written in the book.

By that logic a mage with cybereyes couldn't cast a spell.

They can.

Ergo, someone with cyberears can be affected.

Ah, Occam's Razor. Whoever can state their case in the fewest words, while restating their opponent's case in the most words wins.

Edit: That said, Lurker is right. Occam's Razor says that he is right. Text says tech negates it, cyberears are tech, end.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious in both cases that what is intended by the rules it to limit the magic user's ability to extend the range of their power to infinity. If you choose to play that the technology is magical kryptonite, Lurker, that's up to you, but I wouldn't expect other people to interpret the rules that way.

"Pluck out your eyes."

Not only will they hurt themselves, but dropping everything they are carrying is implied.

"Give me your admin password"

"press emergency shut down button"

"Strip, shirt first"

"pay me fifty thousand more"

"All cyberware functions the same to magic"

I've got 7 words. I could add "implanted" to be more specific, and have 8.

"That it works as it's written in the book."

You've got 9.

Chuck Norris.
There's two. I win!

For some good non-lethal uses I'd recommend that episode in Season 2 of Supernatural, with the demon-blood psychic kid who could make people do what he wanted. Like give him their coffee. Or Impala.

Also some other things that would be interesting would be "Tell Security/LS/KE to stand down." or something to that effect, if used on some one in a position of authority. As soon as they give the order, drop them with narcojet or cast a Silence Spell or something so they can't undo it.

"Let me through." would work for alot of fun stuff. Although the doorman it is used on would be irked in the next instant...

"Make me a sammich" should always be in constant use of this power, even if the would-be maker only gets to the point of taking out the bread. Oh, and has anybody offered this- "Don't taze me, bro!"

Draco is eating paint chips. - 5 Words.

You know what our two statements have in common? Neither of them are actually in the books and neither of them are actually true. I didn't put mine in quotes as I'm not actually quoting soemthing. I can be very inaccurate in short sentences, it doesn't change it being innacurate

At this point I'm seriously hoping I'm being trolled as otherwise some folks are having less difference of opinion and more setting/rules understanding or reading comprehension problems.

I have searched pretty extensively through the books and previous in this thread I have sited my finding a few posts back. If there was a rule that for spells or for magic cyberware counting as the exact same as a body it is no longer present in 4th edition as of SR4A. There is a specific exception in the form of cybereyes for spell targeting but "Physical cyber- or bioenhancements paid for with Essence can be used to spot targets" that is the one specific mention of this often sited truism.

Once again, the specific power has a weakness when amplified or broadcast by technological means a cyberware may or may not be a part of someone from a essence standpoint but it is surely technological means. To state otherwise requires a special level of doublethink. The only possible logical hair splitting is if they meant literal amplification and literal broadcast and transmission or not and whether the adept has to be a party to it, hence my commentary about an open com line above it.

So in short, even if you believe magic works a certain exact way and believe the power should work that way, that's not what the book says. You can rule that the power's specific limitation doesn't apply but then all specific limitations should not apply.

You can go ahead and continue to believe your interpretation, I don't really care.

The only instance where cyberware is treated differently than the flesh it is implanted in is the Heal spell, which specifically calls it out (well, actually it says "Essence loss"), but everyone knows WHY it is that way.

Oh, and by the way,



Ad hominem.

Is there a logical fallacy for not having any actual backing? Once again i'm not arguing the difference between cyberware and flesh. READ THE DAMN BOOK.

By RAW, any technoligocal link between the initiator of commanding voice and its target blocks the signal. That is black and white on the page.

There are two problems with that regarding cyberears.
1) they are part of the target, in the same way that a cyberarm is part of a person rules-wise, so they are not between the adept and the target.
2) the statement in question concerns itself with limiting the means of propagation, not what kind of targets could be affected.

Broadcast and amplified has a specific meaning and a specific function. They exist to extend range.
There is a rules-parallel in this regarding Line of Sight, and what constitutes a true image.

It really doesn't take much to understand this less literal interpretation of the text.

I'd like to see the 10 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) earbud that has absolutely no sound leakage around it. Just saying. Whether or not the earbuds or tech or anything allows the power to work amped through like you gentlement postulate, earbuds should still allow the target to be affected as they do not completely cut off sound.

EDIT: Maybe if the Adept in question whispered the command to them...

Earbuds may leak sound, but that leaked sound will be modified as to volume and transmitted frequencies, because of the material in the buds and because of the shapes of the gaps around the earbuds. Maybe not stop the attack, but provide a bonus to the resistance test.

Hi i thought i'd come back to this briefly. As far back as I can remember there's been a distinction between physical adept powers and spells. This is touched on briefly in the SR4A core book, all adept powers are physical effects, the cyerears vs eyes vs targeting thing isn't even an accurate comparison, one applies solely to cybereyes and solely to spell targeting, Basically by the interpretation you suggest the parallel really isn't that strong.

Now moving on from the "a wizard did it" argument so to speak while I will concede that the limitation was intended to keep people from amplifying or rebroadcast the effect, but in light of it being a physical power and that limitation. Therefore I have to come up with why it doesn't work in that regard and then use that going forward to determine when the power does and does not work. Within that context I can only figure that the power and the adepts skill puts a tone on the adepts voice that demands respect and obedience, a subtext that mechanical reproduction just looses.

As a final thought, Street Magic is a terribly edited book and it looks like a lot of the stuff received no playtesting at all this is the book that gave us possesion traditions, guardian spirits, two types of mind control and a host of other stuff that signifigantly diverges from the mainbook in powerlevel. Is anyone suprised the adept powers are the same?