Please do not assume I insulted you, just because I disagree with you.
Choosing to ignore parts in the BBB that do not fit or contradict your logic is a no go. I does not really matter if it's actual mechanics or the text that puts those mechanics in context with the world.

Any spell cast on an object MUST overcome the OR per BBB 174

Relevant text

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

Muspellheimer, I'll be blunt. I do not believe that you can't see that you are deliberately ignoring the several parts of the rule book that prove you are wrong.

If you willfully ignore a table that states which spells are subject to OR and which are not, if you insist on cutting one paragraph away from its context in the bizarre belief that the rest of us can't go back read the full passage and see that the statement applies to spells where a resistance test would be allowed for a living target, if you can't see that your own bizarre selectivity would (as Zurai interestingly points out) mean that every spell cast on a living person would be subject to a compulsory resistance test, if you can't accept that the spell descriptions themselves state whether a spell is subject to a resistance test, if you deny that the words "may", "many" and "most" don't mean "always", then I draw three possible conclusions:

1. You have a pre-existing desire to see something wrong in the Shadowrun rules for whatever reasons of your own.
2. You can't bear to be corrected by someone
3. You are driven to seek attention by making silly arguments.

The RAW says what it is supposed to say. You play that way anyway. You are going through idiotic contortions to show there is a discrepancy. How much sense does this really make to you?

And just a debating point, repeating things in bold and saying "final time" doesn't convince anyone of anything. Reading criticisms and responding to those points makes an argument. All you've done is back yourself into a corner where you're too embarrassed to admit you were wrong and the more you defend it, the greater your cognitive dissonance will grow.

K.

What is the range of invisibility?
The effect is descriped to be a mental effect.

How far does this effect stretch?
Force X meters or Force X 10 meters?

Does this mean that a sniper doesn't suffer interference with shooting an invisible mage, if he is shooting at long range?

"Some spells" =/= "Manipulation spells"
"May" =/= "Does"
"These spells do" =/= "Those spells do not"

You are giving the wording far more definition than it has or supports. Yes, there is text in the spell descriptions & Street Magic table that imply other spells are not subject to Object Resistance. This does not make it true.

I am not making anything up. I am not ignoring any part of the rules. There is litterally nothing there that provides concrete support for the assumption that some spells, such as Levitate or Fashion, are not subject to Object Resistance.

I need to know, if you actually believe it's just a massive coincidence that all of the spells that specifically alter the nature of the targets, specifically have the need for an OR test listed in their descriptions, while all of the spells that do not alter the nature of their targets and specifically have success tests listed in their description - and all of these specific examples are also listed with the exact same tests from their descriptions on the spell table from Street Magic.

And I agree with Darthmord. Specific rules override general. Not to mention that I don't agree with your exceedingly narrow interpretation of that snippet of a passage.

That is exactly the point I am making. Specific rules do override general rules. In this case, there are no specific rules overriding the Object Resistance, for any spell.

Success Test Spells: Passive Detection, non-Negative
Health, and some Manipulation spells are handled as
Success Tests. In most cases, the hits from the Spellcasting
Test simply determine the level of effect. Most Passive
Detection spells have a threshold determined by the gamemaster,
with the net hits determining the results (see p.
198, SR4).

Street Magic - p.161

Non-Living Targets: Inanimate objects (including
drones and vehicles) do not make Spell Resistance Tests,
but the spell does have a threshold to succeed as determined
by the Object Resistance Table .

Street Magic - p.161

Environmental Manipulation Spells affect the elements
and physical properties of an area, so they are all area spells. They
must also be physical spells, unless they are specifically affecting
the magical properties of an area, in which case they may be mana
spells. Environmental Manipulations are handled as Success
Tests.

Mental Manipulation Spells affect the mind and are handled
as Opposed Tests. These spells are invariably mana spells.

Physical Manipulation Spells affect specific physical
forms, and so must all be physical spells. Few of these are area effect,
unless they are intended to affect multiple physical forms in
that area. Physical Manipulations are handled as Success Tests.

Mana Manipulation Spells affect specific mana forms, and
so must all be mana spells. Few of these are area effect, unless they
are intended to affect multiple mana forms in that area. Mana
Manipulations are handled as Success Tests.

Street Magic - p.164

Now... the book clearly states that Mental Manipulation is the only kind of Manip. spell that is handled as Opposed test, all others are handled as Success Tests based on a threshold (that Levitate clearly states as the mass of the object).

Edit: This also provides an excellent example of a specific rule overriding the general. Petrify / Turn to Goo are both Physical Manipulation spells that are Opposed Tests. They specifically state as much in their description.

They specifically state as much in their description.

Which applies to the living creature being targeted by the spell just as much as any non-living object.

"Success Test based on weight" is not equivalent to "Not subject to Object Resistance".
It has no text whatsoever that supports this new threshold replacing the Object Resistance.

Of course they are opposed tests, as they only work on living tissue and more importantly they alter the nature of the target, thus they can be resisted.

Specific overrides general.

The specific rules governing all manipulation spells are clearly laid out in the Manipulation spells sub-heading.

And then, the test each spell uses to determine success are clearly laid out in the description of that spell, just like your examples Petrify and Turn to Goo. They don't list tests they don't need to take, because that would be redundant, and wholly unnecessary.

So it's ok when that spell lists how it functions in it's description but not when Fling and Levitate also specifically, and quite clearly, state what kind of test they use to function?

Under your (rather twisted) interpretation of the rules, in order to Levitate a comlink (OR4) I have to cast and succeed well enough to lift 800 kilograms to lift a 2kg comlink?

With how Shadowrun metaphysics work, yes it does make sense. It is stupid, but makes sense. & with how the rules are written, it is exactly how it works.

*In theory "flinging" an object will cause damage to it, but no RPG I've seen actually causes damage to thrown objects, merely the object the thrown item hits. So go ahead, Fling teacups at each other! It doesn't harm the china!

And this is entirely random with nothing regarding the discussion whatsoever. Where did it even come from?

I'm curious so I might as well ask, and I intend no harm if the answer is no; it happens.

But is this discussion about the applicability of the OR table on physical spells related to a change in the 20th anniversary edition? (or has all the text relevant to this particular aspect remained unmodified?)