We're not stating otherwise.

We're saying that the assumption you make of how the spell manifests isn't based on anything, and the way RAW says it's handled seems to support a description like "instantaneous, even distribution of Whatever throughout the area of effect", or to put in in "tablespeak": "everything within 5 meters of the garbage can gets engulfed by fire, as a huge fireball fills the area in an instant of roaring flame". Whereas your description would be along the lines of "a tiny bud of flame appears against the garbage can, quickly growing out to engulf the entire room in its inferno, up to 5 meters away."

Description is moot though, as RAW without assumed additions says every valid target within F meters may be affected. The normal way for physics to apply do so from then on. Armor and even cover applies. Things catch fire, freeze, what have you.
Why does cover apply? I don't have a clue. Because the writer says it does. Adhering to RAW means subjecting to that and needs no explanation.

We have barriers rules pertaining to shooting through barriers, and explosion rules like chunky salsa. Neither applies here. Cover does, but that's a completely different ballpark.
Ballgame? *sigh* Running into non-native language limitations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

@phlapjack77

Well, I know? So what?


You said, I should apply logic to the rules, after I told you it is mostly no good.
But I did it anyway.

My arguments are rock solid, since I got them through logical deduction. The only way to disprove them would to tell me where I took a wrong turn. Where I assumed anything not written in the book. Or ignored something written in the book.



Well, to but it simple: Standing behind a Wall does not protect you from anything, if not stated so. Because a wall has no meaning in the rules by itself.

As the rules go, the wall is only protecting you if somebody/somthing trying to hit you thought the wall. Since a fireball does not state to hit you through the wall, the wall is not protecting you.

Did I not make the assumption, that it does not have to hit through the wall?

I stated I would arguee RAW. There are a lot of hidden assumptions in there. One assumption I needed in this case (not included in this statement), you posted as common ground before.

If nothing is stated I have to conclude nothing happens.
If something is stated I have to conclude this something does happen. (This comes from "I am interpretating RAW")
As a matter of fact it is stated, that evey valid Target (defined as every target on the same plane) in the Force radius is affected by the spell. (This has to happen, because RAW says so)
Nothing else is mentioned, nothing else happens. (This was the point you made)


I only have to take into account what is written. On the other hand I am not allowed to add anything not written.
Since I must not assume, I do just as I am told in the text. The text does not tell me to check for barriers, so I do not. (The barrier rules do not state any rules for AOE spells, so I do not get to apply any general rule)


If you would just ask for my opinion I would tell you, that I think they just forget to mention it or thought it would not be necessary.


As you might have seen, this was a very simple logical deduction based (and this is the point I think you have problems to get) ONLY on RAW not on RAI.
As a matter of fact you got it wrong here too:

It is the other way round. He is looking only at RAW not at RAI, this is what he stated.

You on the other hand start from "Rules as they should be intended as far as I am concerned". So you start from the result and work your way down the rules to find an explanation. You may do this, but the thing is, you tend to drag your starting assumptions with you, which are not shared by everyone.

So, for you to agree that something is RAW, it has to be explicitely stated, each and every time? There are already rules in the books for Barriers, For Combat, For initiative, for Dodgeing, For resisting damage, etc, etc. Why should they have to repeat a rule to make it valid?

You are told that Elemental attacks cause a real, physical force to originate at a point in space (the center of the area of the spell), and that it is a physical effect. Cover applies (They only mention Parital and Good cover, because by the rules, any cover greater than good results in someone not being directly targetable). We know how a barrier reacts to damage, regardless of whether it is a Bullet, explosives, grenades, lightning, or even fire. These are already covered in other areas of the book.

So, when an elemental Spell takes effect, and you have someone who is completely protected by a Wall (your choice if I remember correctly) made of reinforced Concrete (or whatever the hell it is called these days), which has a definite amount of Barrier and Structural rating, YOU MUST take into account whether the spell can penetrate the barrier and cause daamge on the other side of it. Otherwise you get completely stupid results like a Fireball on one side of a Vault Door and all the cash on the other side being vaporized in a ball of flame. Which is completely Ludicrous... Please tell me that you do not truly believe that that is how the rules work for Elemental Spells...

Having waded through this entire tiresome argument, I agree firmly with phlapjack77 and Tymeaus. It seems like every discussion I've seen on DS lately that involves the terms RAW or RAI devolves into pointless bickering over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Also, Brazilian shenanigans!

Brashiliananigans.

Right. More iteration:

We are told so by you, and others, but not by RAW.
RAW states that after the spell construct reaches the designated point in space (which is resolved as a ranged atack so applicable modifiers apply), or an obstacle impeding it from getting there, the effect defined in the spell description manifests. The effect defined in the spell description states everything with F meters op the designated point gets a defensive roll, followed by a resistance roll if the caster has net successes left, followed by an ammount of damage and possible extra effects being inflicted.
Raw mentions none of this "originating" thing people keep bringing up. It just doesn't.
Yes, it's ugly. Yes, it probably should, but it doesn't.


No, you must not take this into account. RAW mentions nothing about anything passing through anything, or about anything "passing" at all, short of the spell construct travelling from the caster to the target. Anything beyond this is RAI. People reading more into things than exists, or making stuff up.
There is nothing conflicting inside of the rules or fluff for them to work as presented, so making assumptions like movement being necessary from a point of origin are superfluous and should be left out when discussing RAW. RAW works, so needs no alteration. You don't agree with how it works, so it does for you. However, this is imposing a baseless assumption.

Since it's magic, it can create an even distribution of a damaging effect through a perfectly spherical area, regardless of what's in it.
Since it's magic, it can flat out state that cover and half armor apply regardless of any qualifiers in the line above.

The common perception of how a fireball should work does not agree with this, but it can, and according to RAW, it does.

Is it ludicrous? Why? Because the general image of what happens does not agree with what RAW says happens? Because it doesn't take into accout mechanics that have been outlined for completely different events? While people may think of a Fireball as a kind of grenade, RAW says it's nothing like that, beyond being targetted, and affecting an area by damaging it. The how of it is completely different.

Of course, both me and Irion have readily admitted to this not being a very elegant ruling, that's completely worthy of houseruling otherwise. However, it being RAW is just undeniable, as long as you don't go inputting your own assumptions of how things should work.

This has been going on too long.

This is easy to resolve.

Indirect AoE spells require line of effect (line of sight, whatever) from their center. Invisible persons are subject to the effect even though they are unseen by the caster due to the nature of the spell (specific exemption).

Other wise you end up with things like this:



C = Caster
* = Spell center
# = Wall
T = Target

If LoS is determined from the caster's perspective, then the Target gets cover from the wall, despite having direct LoS to the center of the spell.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, though. The question is teleporting through walls, from the spell's 'point of view'.

I wouldn't argue it's an assumption from an unreasonable point of view, but it's completely baseless in RAW. Necessity of line of effect is not mentioned anywhere (in SR4a), necessity of LoS is only mentioned for targetting spells. Not in the slightest for area spells and the targets they affect from their target. LoS from the caster is in a prerequisite that is explicitly waived. The Blast Against Barriers rules have no bearing here since an Area spell is never defined as a blast.


While indeed having not much bearing on this discussion:
LoS from the caster by RAW has no bearing beyond targetting the spell.
However, I think using it to determine if cover should apply is a way of adjucating it that would make sense in some way if a Fireball creates an instantaneous, static damaging effect. Using LoS from the center would make much more sense wether seeing it as such or as a blast though IMHO.

Yes. And my point is, you have to determine LoS from somewhere to hit targets on "the other" side of the wall.

You can't start at the caster for indirect spells (direct are another matter entirely and for that I would determine from the caster, as they are direct) due to the above mentioned issue. Therefore you have to check from the spell's center, which forbids "teleporting through walls" due to the nature of the spell.

Namely:

Yes and no.
The question is not: "does the effect teleport through walls?" The question is: "is there any movement of any damaging effect at all?"

RAW mentions no such thing.
We do not need to make the assumption to let the system work as it stands.
Hence we do not make the assumption.
Hence the answer by RAW is no.

Our perceptions of what a fireball looks like, plus our perceptions of how it should work say there is.
Hence we make the assumption that it does.

Building from this:
Our perceptions of both indicate that the system is fundamentally flawed if it doesn't incorporate this.
Hence, we need to incorporate the assumption, and any logical conclusions this leads to into RAW.
Hence common RAI says "yes, and all that should entail."

Draco18s: That's the 'launch' bit, not the 'explosion' bit. I think that's been addressed a couple times.

Mardrax, it's just an expression. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Teleportation doesn't exist in SR. Call the effect of spontaneously appearing whatever you want, it's still what we're talking about.

And yes, Yeremahu. I know it is. It's an expression that impliess certain connotations though. Mostly the point that people have focussed on that word in terms of "since it's a physical effect that conforms to laws of physics, it can't teleport." So I'm try to shift focus away from that word and replace it with something a bit more neutral.
Nothing meant to detract from your statement. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The phrasing SR4a pg 204 uses is "the effect ... manifests".

So, you are telling me, that if I have good cover from the center of the fireball I get a +4 to "dodge" it, but if I'm completely surrounded by concrete I, not only don't get the +4 to "dodge" it as I am even affected by the spell at all?

SHENANIGANS!!!

Brazilian ones, at that.

No one is saying that. Cover applies. If you are entitled to the cover bonus, you get it on your defensive roll, the way cover is always handled. While from what point this cover should be judged isn't too clear (since LoS from the caster is waived as a condition for anything but targetting the spell initially, and the spell effect itself doesn't really have anything to do with the "center" as a place of origin) being buried in concrete should count as cover by anyone's reckoning.
Where are you getting the idea that anyone ever said this wouldn't be so?

You are by RAW affected though, yes. You get to make your dodge roll like anyone else, is my interpretation anyway. RAW is ambiguous in this if you take a real strict reading like Irion has done. Everyone rolling defense against the same spellcasting roll would be the interpretation that gives least headaches and an as fair as possible result for all parties, IMHO. That bit is RAI on my side though. Feel free to go against it.

While the cover from the concrete gives you a better chance to 'dodge' the spell, being completely sealed off from the rest of the world makes no difference by RAW, as long as you're within F meters of the spell's target. There's only two things that can keep you from being affected if you are: being on a completely different plane of existence, or being in a background count higher than F.
And no, these two facts don't contradict eachother, as the reason for neither is explained.

Also, no need to shout. Even if you don't agree with a point that's argued. Call it shenanigans all you want. But know that all we're doing is advocating RAW. If anyone wants to diverge from that, it's their choice. I know I have, and will.

This is such a ludicrous argument that I cannot even reply.... I think that you are selectively ignoring whole sections of rules to make your point, as others have pointed out...

BRAZILIAN SHENANIGANS...

I'm not.
Since again the point is raised that I'm ignoring parts of the rules, and again nothing is explicified, I'll again iterate that I'd be happy to take a look at anything you think is being ignored, if you say what it is.
Since you haven't though, I'll just assume you're again referring to the rules on barriers, especially aspects of how they pertain to blasts.
As has been pointed out in both concise and elaborate fashions, with full backup of quoted applicable rules, through multiple arguments, those simply do not apply. Repeating the points is becoming tedious, so I'll just refer you to the last two pages of this thread, where this has been dealt with, the topmost post on this one would be a good place to start.

If you would care to support your position that they should with an argument that is not grounded in the baseless assumption that there is a movement of force or damaging effect from the spell area's center to its outer edges, you are totally welcome to.
As it stands though, RAW says the spell effect manifests evenly on every applicable target within F meters of the spell's target.

As all arguments I've seen so far been grounded in this assumption though, they aren't even wrong, they're simply invalid when discussing RAW.

If you would correct my assumption of what rules you're referring to, I'll gladly stand corrected, and again will gladly look at them.

Because I don't see it how it is possible for someone completely isolated from an outside enviroment can be affected at all by whatever is happening outside without this whatever don't break the thing isolating the person at first.
And saying it is magic doesn't cut here, because while we might call it magic, the hermetics call it taumaturgy or something similar and believe that magic is just another aspect of nature that can be easily explained by the scientific method. And as far as I know, while magic (mana) does create a spherical igneous ball with a temperature of at least 1370K at coordinates X, Y and Z designated by its caster's will that's all it does. After the fireball has been created, all the natural laws of physics apply and the natural laws of physics says that fire can't phase through concrete.

No one is saying that they don't apply. No one is saying that it can phase through anything. No one is saying that it does.
RAW is saying this ball of fire is created to exact dimensions (a perfect sphere, with a radius of F), regardless of what's in those dimensions.



No one^x is talking about phasing or moving or blasting or teleporting or passing or sifting or any other synonym that implies anything about movement, let alone through or past anything.
Because RAW gives no bases to do so, since the ball is created evenly, and regardless to obstructions. Laws of physics apply from the moment the spell's effects have manifested. This manifesting is magic, which indeed defers to rules, namely to the rules as described in RAW. These rules state every valid target may be affected.

^xNo one who says the spell would affect you, according to RAW, even if you're buried in concrete. That is mainly Irion and me.
And we're saying that while you are, you shouldn't be. If you want to discuss RAW. Because again, RAW doesn't mention anything about this, and doesn't even mention anything that might imply something of the sort. What it does mention is that all valid targets within the area are affected.
Everything that does imply movement is the collective concept of "fireball" people seem to have. Mental pictures have no place in RAW though.
We have iterated this multiple times.

Also, you didn't reply to the question or anything else you quoted, but meh.

So if it forms inside the hollow concrete cube, then it forms inside a person's lungs.

Q.E.D.

The rules don't say anything to support that everything within the radius of the spell is affected. They do state that every "valid" target in the area is affected, but do not specifically define what constitutes a valid target for an area spell. They state that indirect area spells "may" affect everyone in the full radius, but do not agree with you that they "must" be affected.

Without making additional assumptions, you may conclude that the rules do not explicitly support the case of indirect spells affecting things on the other side of a barrier but within the area of effect and that they also do not explicitly support the case of the indirect spells' area of effect being stopped by the barrier to the limit of the barrier's ability to resist.

There is no conclusive answer if you only want to read the three or four short sentences that govern indirect AOE spells.

However, it is heavily implied that it is the case that barriers interfere with the area of effect.

The first way it implies this is by not explicitly stating the contrary. Filling the spaces behind barriers without breaching the barrier is both powerful and useful enough to suggest that some explicit attention be given to that scenario.

The second way it implies this is by conformity to conventional RPG wisdom. If this is a defining point that's intended to be different from every single other RPG in existence, not bothering to mention that specific and unique difference and instead leaving it up to the various player groups to figure out for themselves <edit here, forgot to come back to this point> would be unnecessarily confusing if it were the explicit intent to contradict most commonly-held norms of RPGs.

The third way it implies is this by conformity to previous editions of the game. In the previous edition, all of the Elemental Manipulation area spells acted "in the same way as a physical explosion or grenade." Non-elemental AOE spells acted as Direct spells do in 4th edition. Changing the way this works would constitute a major change to the way the world of the game operates, and you would expect that sort of major change to be mentioned somewhere.

While you may decide that you will read the rules-as-written in such a way as to support the idea that AOE spells affect areas outside of a traditional view of line of effect, you are definitely in error to argue that the game mechanics as written support that view.

Likewise, you may decide that you want to use the rules in that same way, but you would be in error to argue that the game mechanics intend for you to do so.

tl;dr -- the argument is specious.

You mean, your interpretation of RAW is this, right? Otherwise, can you give me a page number to find your exact quote above?

And don't find something that's similarly worded. Give an exact quote that matches exactly what you said above.

Now for something a bit different, what happens if there is an astral barrier between the target and the impact point of the spell ?

Let me pose this hypotetical situation : we are on a parking lot, there is guy A one meter inside a Force 7 spherical Mana Barrier spell, guy B standing 1 meter outside of the barrier. A mage Coutside casts a Force 4, 4-meter radius Fireball spell.

The rules tells us that the spell fizzles if it hit an astral barrier it cannot beat, so targeting guy A is a bad idea. Now suppose the mage target guys B, outside of the barrier. What happens ?

1- since the barrier is intersecting the AoE of the spell, it need to defeatit in order to have any effect at all, if it does not A AND B are safe ?

2- since the spell does not collide with the barrier before hitting it's intended target, it works normally and affects everyone in a 5 meter radius - B is fried (OK), but A too (weird) ?

3- B is affected normally, but the spell need to defat the magical barrier, otherwise A is unscathed ?

4- something else ?

Just because he stated it, doesn't make it true.


You seem to be in disagreement with yourself, as shown here and here and here.