For the purpose of determining the capacity and effectiveness of the sensor package, shure. not for the purpose of determining the needed OR.

Thinking this way you put... if you're using Imp.Invisiblity against a camera that is exactly this... only a camera... it's just record image (light) and show in a screen (the camera or the system itself don't do any kind of analysis on the image... you have to beat the OR of the camera too, or you just oppose your Imp.Invisibility against the metahuman guard that's watching the footage?

Come to the chat this Saturday, or wait until after the chat. =i)

That's only valid if you insist that a Camera with a Microphone is somehow technologically much more advanced for it's visual function (the only thing affected by improved Invisibility) than the sole Camera.

Which, by definition of the OR table, it isn't.

The increased OR for vehicles was a needed change to make flights at least somehow safe again... but it really shouldn't cause cause artifacts like 'The Camera on the lightpost can't see you, but the Camera on the Microdrone can - even if it's both a single Camera'.

In fact, at least for me (see my last post), it's not a matter of a camera or a microphone being more or less advanced (since you're not even targeting the camera itself with magic). It's a matter of the software involved in interpreting the image to find intrusion, movement or anything else being more or less advanced. So, that why i guess that's is more important the system behind the sensor than the sensor itself.

How does improved invisibility work?

Does it hides you/object from dectection by all forms of electromagnetisme, aka light based perception, including thermovision, infrared, ultraviolet, rontgen, gamma radiation, microwaves, radiowaves, as they are all electromagnetic waves? Or does it produces a 'see-me-not'/SomeoneElsesProblem field, where the people you are trying to hide from do infact detect you, but regard you as insignificant and step aside when they walk almost into you, in which case the spell affects all forms of dectection as this is a mental effect, beyond mere perceving something.

I see two methods
1) You make the spellcasting test, beat the OR of the object YOU are making invisible, NOT the object you are trying to HIDE FROM.

To be detected by a sensor who beats your hits on a perception test, using clearsoft+pilot/perception+sensor

OR

2) You make the spellcasting test and to succeed you have to beat the OR of the object you are trying to hide from.
In this case you try to hide from a security camera (OR 4), you succeed with 4 hits, but when security drone #1 comes around the corner, it'll detect you and your spell will hide you like the emperor's new clothes hid his adam's costume.

While a nice idea, it just isn't the case for the commlink with the camera.

It's 2.

Only the light spectrum, not the rest.

Or the wageslaves commlinks. At which point it becomes silly...

I would like to argue option 1, because if option 2 is the correct one, then when you cast imp. inv. and beat the OR no sensor has any chance to detect you even if it has a high pilot rating/sensor rating + clearsoft and making the spell description moot.

Now on the other hand, if option 1 is the case, then your team mage goes like this, 'ehm guys I can make you invisible even for the drones, but not your fancy hardware (commlinks, guns, cyberware, ect) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Now I'm picturing floating cyberware

I'm picturing 3 naked trolls (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The thing with that is that if you think things through in detail, it would more likely be the other way around. I.e. a simple motion sensor without any processing will fire off whether you're an armed intruder, a stray moggie or any other random false alarm. It detects movement, that's what it does. Whereas the sophisticated drone is probably more complicated. If it sees some blurring then maybe it thinks hot air rising from asphalt, I wont bother with it.

I'm not sure this has any bearing on the argument, but it's something that occured to me.

Proof that for imp inv one does not have to beat the OR of the sensor one is trying to hide from

BBB SR4 p174

A spell cast ON a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted, as the object has no life force and thus no connection to mana with which to oppose the casting of the spell (note that only Physical spells will aff ect non-living objects; mana spells have no eff ect). Highly processed and artifi cial items are more difficult to affect than natural, organic objects. Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold based on the type of object affected.

//emphasis mine//

Invisibility is NOT cast on the sensor, but on an object/person that one is trying to hide. ERGO the OR one must beat is the OR of the object one is trying to hide, NOT the sensor, one is trying to hide from!

On the other hand magic is not so uncommon that security bots wouldn't be programmed to look for signs of it.

What really annoys me about this change is that it doesn't only screw over imp. invisibility but also physical masking. You could always mask yourself as something with similar shape to trick ultrasound scanners but thanks to the high OR nowadays that doesn't work anymore as well.

IMO, the obscuring spells (invisibility and such) should impose a dice pool penalty equal to the number of hits against the sensing target much in the same vein as how visibility modifiers in combat work.

Thus a person protected by Improved Invisibility runs past a motion sensor that is rating 4. The Imp Invis only had 3 successes. The motion sensor has 1 die to see if it detects the person.

This would lead to situations where some sensors will pick you up while others won't. Which is how it should be.

But they are affected by the spell (second sentence) and thus, OR applies.

In fact, don't (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) .

Because then you're comparing the Imp.Invis against something that has nothing to do with Imp.Invis (something that capture movement, and not light/vision). Motion Sensors are what they are because of their simplicity... just like trip-wires attached to bells... are so simple, but catch you even with Imp.Invis.




If not because the Synner's posts about OR and everything else, i would agree with Dathmord. In it's essence, Imp.Invis affects the object/person who becomes invisible, not the watcher (persor or objetc). When you pass with Imp.Invis in front of someone who don't see you, he isn't directly affected by magic, since you don't manipulate his mana, don't manipulate mana on him, you even don't leave a astral signature on him. If someone assense the watcher, will see that no magic is affecting him (at least, not your Imp.Invis, anyway).

But... we know the rules states differently.

Some motion sensors work via infra-red light (such as the ones in my house). I used to try and sneak past them by moving very slowly (just as it describes doing in the BBB, in fact) and that works. They monitor for changes in the bounced back light, I think.

K.

Actually, it affects the latter (that the whole point - making others not seeing you), even if cast on the former. It's the same for Detection spells.

The ones in SR use ultrasound, but are just as cheap and defeated by moving slow enough.
And of course, they are mostly used to trigger the lights...

While I personally don't agree with the RAW, in that you do in fact have to beat the OR of the technological system in question when using an illusion spell. That's in fact how it works.

SR4 Pg. 200 under Illusion Spells
"Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold."

That's specifically in the Illusion section of the Grimoire detailing how physical illusions interact with Tech systems.

Now personally I think there should be a different mechanic for it. As I agree that you're not actually casting the spell on the system. It also solves the massive problem that has been caused by the new, ridiculous, OR table - which by the way also screws the ram/wreck/demolish line of DC spells specifically designed to attack inanimate objects. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

This is ambiquity of the language. As I see it, only the hidden object is affected; it is hidden. The effect thereoff is that the object can't be dectected by any visual means, if the observer does not beat the hits acquired on the spellcasting test.
The affected part in this is the light, that can't be detected, not the sensors.

Nope, in that case, it would be a Manipulation Spell, not an Illusion Spell.

The whole point of Illusion Spells is to affect the viewer.

I believe this is for the spells such as chaos, vehicule mask and silence, where you cast the illusion spell directly on the technological system.

Then it is in accordance with both set of rules at the same time, hence no more ambiquity

It's for all Illusion Spells - and no, you don't cast those spells on the technological viewer, either.

It hides you from normal forms of electromagnetism. RADAR, Ultrasound, Sonar, etc... will pick you up. As would microwaves, radiowaves, etc. It only hides you from what are classed as



By this description, Improved Invisibility is a manipulation spell since it warps the light, while Invisibility is a mana illusion since it affects your mind.
However, it only affects the visible spectrum, so Ultrasound, Microwave, etc which are not normally perceivable by metahumanity and are only perceivable via technology wouldn't be affected by either of them.

Then we arrive at how the illusion spell works. If invisibility works by affecting the viewer it becomes a 'see-me-not'/SomeoneElsesProblem field, where the caster is ignored.

Except Improved Invis which is described as what has to be a manipulation spell on the visible spectrum of light.