LoS and AoE spells Options

[Adarael]

"Like ranged combat attacks" means all applicable modifiers and conditions apply, except the explicitly indicated exception of being able to affect targets the caster cannot see. In all other cases, if the opposed roll pans out in the caster's favor, any applicable target is in fact affected, according to RAW.
Anything about cover, beyond the indicated penalties and bonusses on the attack/defense rolls is purely RAI and not supported by RAW.

So no, Adarael, that is not how it works according to RAW, while it might be how it works at most tables.

This is a reading that most users of this board and most players do not share with you, sir. The key phrasing here - "all valid targets in the area" - is not widely accepted to mean "all targets, period". This is because if a spell manifested itself universally through all objects within a zone, there is no rational reason armor should apply *at all* to elemental AOE attacks, as the fire/lightning/whathaveyou would be manifesting under their clothes as equally as it did upon it. Additonally, if we are to treat these attacks as we would "ranged combat", logic dictates other ranged combat rules MUST apply, such as in the case of "blast through barriers" and "damaging occupants of a vehicle," et cetera. The call-out about possibly hitting targets the caster cannot see is explicitly to differentiate the spells from Direct Combat AOE spells, as referenced above. Note that it says "may affect", not "will affect".

[Irion]

@WyldKnight

Irion, look above. Just look at it. Do you see it? Good. It says right there that cover applies.

Well, I looked at it and I saw: Somebody else already took it into account. So I thought, there would be no need to go over it again. Since I did not want to raise the impression, that I do not read what other people post and just reply to post directed at me. So I just thought to myself, mention you took notice and saw the answer in the thread.
But well, it seems it would have been better to quote it. Here you go:

By RAW,(as per the passage Wyldknight quoted) physical obstacles only come into play if they exist between the caster and the spell's intended point of impact. Yes, if you cast an F7 fireball at a tank, the tank will be unscathed at all, while inhabitants fry.
You can't target it inside the tank though, nor behind a pane of glass. The armchair magician needs to open his window to cast Fireballs out of it, or blow up his living room. And he can't use the spying mirror to look around the corner either, or magesight goggles. Not so for Manabolts.

Once the spell hits a surface though, everything within F meters get fried, regardless of barriers and such. (as per the passage Irion quoted, and the back end of the passage Wyldknight quoted, which says Indirect damage spells do not need LoS between caster and targets within the spell's area to affect them) The barriers have a chance of being blown to bits as well, but don't have to be for the person inside to die horribly. While the gypsum wall might survive the initial fireball, the wooden supports don't.

[Irion]

Dopple post

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Blasted lack of nesting quotes:

SR4A: Instead the spell takes effect at the point of contact with an obstructing barrier. In the case of mana barriers, use the standard rules for casting through barriers, but if the spell’s Force is insufficient to beat the mana barrier it “fizzles” at the point of contact with the barrier.

Yet another reason to properly ward tanks...crank up that effective OR.

[Mardrax]

Again, it doesn't matter if there's a big error in the RAW. Let's forget about the tank, with its complications of 'tiny holes' and things. We know that indirect effects do not *teleport through* solid objects.

We know this. RAW doesn't, which is all I've been saying. That, and I think this bears remembering in some cases, where the "total cover" isn't as clear cut. While being inside a bunker should completely stop the blast, it shouldn't do so if a nearby window is open. And with a 10 meter diameter for an F5 spell, "nearby gets a fairly wide definition, if you'll pardon the pun. While being behind a chest high wall of plascrete should by all means count as total cover for machine gun fire, I don't think it should in any way be a deteriment to aforementioned F5 Whateverball, which should wrap around it no problem.

Irion, look above. Just look at it. Do you see it? Good. It says right there that cover applies. So lets break this down shall we?

Cover applies = Physical objects effect it

Physical objects effect it = Physical objects can stop it

Physical objects can stop it = It can't phase through obejects

It can't phase through objects being the point of what we're arguing against. Now please show me something that states otherwise.

This would be all well and good, if it wasn't totally hinging on RAI.

The quote you gave only mentions Partial or Good cover, which respectively mean a +2 and +4 modifier on the defense roll. Any other conclusions you draw from that are not supported by RAW.
You could apply the -6 Blind Fire penalty as well, on bases of being "completely obscured by cover", which shouldn't matter 1) due to the explicit exception of any perception applying from the spell's target point/object and 2) due to it not being a "positive cover modifier that the defender benefits from." (it's not positive, and the defender doesn't benefit from it, rather, it hinders the attacker).
Even if you do though, a -6 doesn't say "no attack possible". And even Blind Fire has a possibility of hitting.
Edit:
Interestingly, other modifiers that don't apply to the defense test include: wound modifiers, having defended against other attack modifiers, defender prone modifier and the -2 for defending against an attack while inside a vehicle. All because only positive modifiers are applied.

I have showed you something that shows otherwise in my previous post. I have even provided a possible valid reason a few posts back for this to apply in the case Shinobi brought up, beyond the "this is how RAW says it works. Why? Because it's Magic!" that really is all the necessary argument to apply to a purely RAW discussion.

Adarael:
A valid target for a spell constitutes target that shares physical or astral state with the caster, is in seen or touched by the caster, and in case of M spells, is a living target. Indirect Area Combat spells specificallyignore the second requirement to determine target validity as log as they are in the spell's AoE, which is nowehere stated to be limited by physical barriers.
Yes, armor applies. Why? Because RAW says so. Logic bears no relation to "resisted with Body + half Impact armor."
Also, because fluff says it creates an external damaging medium, so logic dictates armor should apply. This last bit lies outside the scope of a crunch discussion though.
In any case, one doesn't invalidate the other, as nowhere is it said that a Whateverball spreads Whatever out from the target spot to the edges of its area, rather, all valid targets are affected, without either fluff or crunch explanation as to how this takes form.

Oh, also:

In the case of ramming, full-auto and area-effect attacks, both passengers
and vehicles resist the damage equally.

Is yet another factor to take into account.
An F10 Whateverball will in most likelihood kill all occupants of a vehicle by RAW, same as a full-auto narrow burst, while leaving the vehicle mostly unharmed.

Another thing to note about that precious armor: if you're hit by a Fireball, your armor is just as much a valid target as you are. It might just desintegrate on you on a proper roll.

[Yerameyahu]

I do agree that, by the crazy AOE-vs.-vehicle rules, it's already a given that a fireball will affect all occupants. That's a terrible, stupid rule, but that's what we've got.

[Muspellsheimr]

This would be all well and good, if it wasn't totally hinging on RAI.

No, it's not.

Rules as Written, cover applies to spell defense tests.
Rules as Written, indirect combat spells function as ranged combat.


Now, until you can provide a RAW quote on how cover does not apply to ranged combat, you are wrong. Simple, right?



As for the specific instance of vehicles, you are correct. Not because of the magic rules, but because of the absolutely retarded vehicle combat rules.

[Mr Clock]

I'm just totally going to cover this with any magical types before dice get anywhere near the table so I know they're not going to expect to be able to microwave tank crews just because. I shall term any attempt to do so "Brazilian Shenanigans" and impose an appropriate penalty.

I dig the rules and I understand the purpose of having rules. I get it that these rules have been playtested and everything, but...c'mon. Magic in my Shadowrun has rules and goddamnit, those rules are going to make sense. From where I'm sat, hitting the inside of a tank with no visual link or physical leak path is a no-no.

What happened to the old drop a Force 1 spirit inside and tell it to hold real still while you cast a little spell?

[pbangarth]

What happened to the old drop a Force 1 spirit inside and tell it to hold real still while you cast a little spell?

I think you are thinking of grounding a spell through an astral form, and 4th edition doesn't do that. But hey, even a Force 1 spirit inside the tank is really bad news for the crew. Especially fire...

[phlapjack77]

Yes, armor applies. Why? Because RAW says so. Logic bears no relation to "resisted with Body + half Impact armor."
Also, because fluff says it creates an external damaging medium, so logic dictates armor should apply. This last bit lies outside the scope of a crunch discussion though.
In any case, one doesn't invalidate the other, as nowhere is it said that a Whateverball spreads Whatever out from the target spot to the edges of its area, rather, all valid targets are affected, without either fluff or crunch explanation as to how this takes form.

I can totally see where you're coming from. You're choosing one interpretation of RAW over another. Ok, it's your game, no biggee. But the fact that you're choosing the interpretation that makes LESS sense is really mystifying. You're picking one little phrase "all valid targets are affected" to focus on and throwing anything else away that doesn't fit your viewpoint.

You're even blatantly admitting above that logic has NO bearing on your decision. How do you expect people to take your arguments seriously when you admit that your ideas are logic-free?

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

I'm just totally going to cover this with any magical types before dice get anywhere near the table so I know they're not going to expect to be able to microwave tank crews just because. I shall term any attempt to do so "Brazilian Shenanigans" and impose an appropriate penalty.

I'm... flattered??? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mardrax]

You're even blatantly admitting above that logic has NO bearing on your decision. How do you expect people to take your arguments seriously when you admit that your ideas are logic-free?

I'm just looking at things from a purely RAW standpoint. Logic has no bearing there. Especially when discussing Magic.

No, it's not.

Rules as Written, cover applies to spell defense tests.
Rules as Written, indirect combat spells function as ranged combat.


Now, until you can provide a RAW quote on how cover does not apply to ranged combat, you are wrong. Simple, right?

I quote myself:

The quote you gave only mentions Partial or Good cover, which respectively mean a +2 and +4 modifier on the defense roll. Any other conclusions you draw from that are not supported by RAW.
You could apply the -6 Blind Fire penalty as well, on bases of being "completely obscured by cover", which shouldn't matter 1) due to the explicit exception of any perception applying from the spell's target point/object and 2) due to it not being a "positive cover modifier that the defender benefits from." (it's not positive, and the defender doesn't benefit from it, rather, it hinders the attacker).
Even if you do though, a -6 doesn't say "no attack possible". And even Blind Fire has a possibility of hitting.
Edit:
Interestingly, other modifiers that don't apply to the defense test include: wound modifiers, having defended against other attack modifiers, defender prone modifier and the -2 for defending against an attack while inside a vehicle. All because only positive modifiers are applied.

How am I saying cover does not apply? Raw is quite clear on that it does.

If the target is also protected by Counterspelling (p. 185), she may add Counterspelling dice to this resistance test. This Opposing dice pool is further modified by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see Defender/Target has Partial Cover or Good Cover, p. 160).

I have (I believe fairly exhaustively) listed the RAW effects of this statement. And yes, both reasons I've given for Blind fire not applying are arguing semantics. The first however, is explicitly mentioned to be true, while the second is admittedly nitpicking and might be read more permissively.
Even if you discount both of those, it's still just a -6 for the attacker. Nowhere is it said that total cover in any way prevents possibility of attack entirely.
That is what I'm saying.

What I'm also saying is that this line of reasoning:

Cover applies = Physical objects effect it

Physical objects effect it = Physical objects can stop it

Physical objects can stop it = It can't phase through obejects

It can't phase through objects being the point of what we're arguing against. Now please show me something that states otherwise.

Hinges on RAI entirely.
Let me go through it in steps:
The premise that: cover applies to the defense roll you make when being a valid target inside the range of an area, indirect damage combat spell, to avoid said spell affecting you. Supported by RAW in the passage Wyldknight himself quoted.
The conclusion that: Physical objects can stop such a spell from affecting someone. Yes, they can. (note that armor applying to the resistance test is a completely separate premise, which leads to the conclusion that physical objects can also prevent a spell that affects something from damaging it. Related, but not the same by far)

The following premise and conclusion combination though is purely the realm of RAI. That physical objects are sometimes able to stop a spell from affecting someone doesn't mean they always are, it also doesn't mean that the spell's effect can't "phase through objects". The only thing it means is that physical objects are sometimes able to stop a spell from affecting someone.
This is the same condition that applies when talking about the same "obstacles" and any ranged weapon. Can a plascrete wall stop a bullet from hitting someone behind it? Yes it can. Does it however make this impossible? No. The attacker simply rolls Intuition instead of Agility, and adds a -6 Blind Fire modifier. Can FFBA stop a bullet that hit from harming someone? Yes. Does it make prevent the passing of bullets altogether? No.

The entire question is a moot point though. RAW never mentions anything about a spell's effect needing to travel outward from the targetted point to any objects it is to affect, or about it being stopped completely by obstacles in its path if this were so (see above paragraph). This entire assumption is RAI, and breaks down fast even if I'm asking you. Surely, you don't let the pixie standing behind the troll go free? The subsequent addition by some that the barrier not applying if it gets destroyed by the same spell, while being a really logical step, and one I have really no objections to whatsoever, is nothing more than applying some of the normal blast rules to a spell, which is again RAI.
Again, I really see where you're coming from with this assumption, which as far as I'm concerned should have both fluff and crunch to back it up. The plain truth is though, that it has neither that I've seen.

The length and breadth of what RAW has to say is that everyone and everything within F meters of the target spot, that is a valid target for the spell (requiring sharing astral/physical state and being a living target if concerning an M spell, and explicitly not requiring LoS) and doesn't roll more successes on his resulting Reaction (+ Counterspelling) (+ any applicable positive modifiers) roll than the mage did on his Magic + Spellcasting (+ modifiers applicable to both spellcasting and ranged attacks)(chance for the spell to miss -> "may be affected by"), he subsequently gets a chance to resist F + (net hits) worth of appropriate damage.

The reading that the spell's area is "magically filled by some effect that in a split second causes Whatever damage on everything that could validly be targeted by the spell", is a description that far better describes the RAW effect. Even that is still a fluff description though, while RAW is what matters for where this discussion went.
Unless you houserule different. Which again, as I've said from the start, I can really get into. All I have been saying though, is that it's a houserule, based on RAI, and not in any case RAW.

[phlapjack77]

I'm just looking at things from a purely RAW standpoint. Logic has no bearing there. Especially when discussing Magic.

Logic should have bearing, certainly. When you're trying to interpret the rules, which is what you, I, everyone is doing.

The rules aren't explicitly clear on whether everyone gets hit regardless of cover. You're choosing to interpret it that way. But with the overwhelming evidence that this is a physical effect, you're also choosing to ignore the logic that physical effects are stopped / influenced by things like cover. Your pixie example is especially bad.

Basically, when the rules aren't 100% crystal clear, and they pretty much never are, you have to use logic, or better termed "critical thinking". Just taking one small sentence or two completely out of context, like you're doing, results in nonsensical rulings.

Because that's what you're doing. You're running with the sentence(s) that fit your viewpoint, and ignoring other sentences, and the rest of the context.

[Mardrax]

Logic has a bearing when RAW fails to provide a clear answer. RAW provides a very clear cut answer here.

The rules are very clear on wether everyone gets hit, regardless of cover: Partial and Good cover apply, so if that +2 or +4 to your defense roll help you out enough to 'dodge' the spell', you didn't get hit, because of the cover. This means that yes, a Whateverball spell effect could be stopped from affecting someone or influenced otherwise (negating net hits, thus damage) by cover. It also means that no, in no case is it ever stopped outright, with no chance of affecting him altogether. There is no precedent for this in RAW whatsoever, outside of invalid (by plane, LoS, or mismatches between target and spell through being M or P type) spell targets. Since none of the invalid spell target conditions apply here, affecting a target shouldn't be prevented outright.

It being a physical effect means absolutely nothing. Not in this context. Outside of this context, it means that it cannot be cast on the astral, and can only be cast by physical subjects at physical subjects or objects. It again has no meaning whatsoever in this context of defining how a spell takes shape, or how it affects targets, beyond that what is stated in the Indirect Combat Spell passage on page 204 of SR4a. Any assumptions and conclusions you make beyond this are RAI, not RAW.

I'm not ignoring any sentences. If you could point me to any sentence I ignored, I'd be more than happy to have a look, but I'm fairly certain that I've by now gone over everything that applies pretty much twice, and chances of me having missed anything are fairly slim.
Thing is that often certain lines just don't say what people commonly think they do, and don't have near as wide reaching consequences. All of which cases where this has happend, I have answered them to the fullest extent possible, and still, the point expressed by RAW doesn't change.
I have posted complete sections of applicable rules, on several occasions, and based everything I've said on those. I might be "taking on a small sentence or two", or even a word or two, really, and showing what those words mean from as simple a standpoint as I can. I am not however twisting them in any way. I'm applying Ockham's razor, and using the quickest, and easiest way to interpret everything as it is written, while not losing any data that is provided in the process. Which everyone argueing RAW should do as much as possible.

What others, including you, are doing, is adding implications to rules, and making assumptions that realy don't exist in anything but RAI. Again, this is fine. It runs with how most of us consider this application of magic to work. While it is fine though, it is not RAW.

[phlapjack77]

I'm applying Ockham's razor, using the quickest, and easiest way to interpret everything as it is written. Which everyone argueing RAW should do as much as possible.

I don't think Ockham's razor means what you think it means. "Quickest" ? "Easiest" ? In fact, I would go so far as to say Occam's razor explicitly denies your interpretation.

I'll point some of your ignoring sentences out here, here, here, and here. You attempt to use "handwavium" to discount these points taken from the text, but that's all you're doing - applying your own interepretation.

But I can tell you've found THE ONE TRUE RULING OF RAW here, and won't be persuaded otherwise, so I'll just stop now. Brazilian Shenanigans !

[Irion]

@phlapjack77
First of all "Logic" is overrated anyway.
In school I often got from other students, that my explanations would not be logical, no matter they were physically correct. (As a matter of fact they were logical, of course, but "logical" is always used from a very subjectiv point of view.)

And to apply "logic" to Magic is more than silly. Magic contradicts by DEFINITION the laws of logic and nature.
So if you go on you end up with one truth:
The only thing you can turn to are the RULES and WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR GAME.
As a matter of fact the one has no bearing on the other.

Mardrax made it clear he is discussing the RULES.

By the rules it is debatable if armor from cover applys.
By the rules it is debatable if bonus to reaction from cover applys.
But by the rules it is not debatable, that you have to resist (or evade) no matter what. (As a matter of fact, even the evade part could be argued I think, but would not prove strong)

As a matter of fact hiding behind a paper wall would shield me from a fireball following your line of arguement. How is this more or less silly than spells tunneling through a tank?

[phlapjack77]

@phlapjack77
First of all "Logic" is overrated anyway.
In school I often got from other students, that my explanations would not be logical, no matter they were physically correct. (As a matter of fact they were logical, of course, but "logical" is always used from a very subjectiv point of view.)

You do know, you're basically saying even though many times people said you weren't being logical, you just ignored them because you knew you were right? This doesn't bode well...

And to apply "logic" to Magic is more than silly. Magic contradicts by DEFINITION the laws of logic and nature.
So if you go on you end up with one truth:
The only thing you can turn to are the RULES and WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR GAME.
As a matter of fact the one has no bearing on the other.

Rules are not some god-given thing unto themselves. When we read them, and apply logic, then we're cooking with gas. We're not (trying to) apply logic to magic, we're applying logic to the rules in the book that talk about magic.

Mardrax made it clear he is discussing the RULES.

Mardrax made it clear he has his interpretation, but he wants it to be THE ONE TRUE RAW. Doesn't matter how badly he or you want it, doesn't make it true.

As a matter of fact hiding behind a paper wall would shield me from a fireball following your line of arguement. How is this more or less silly than spells tunneling through a tank?

No, that explicitly isn't my line of argument at all. Please try to use some logic, here, even though I know you admitted you're not good at it above. Apply the barrier rules to the paper shield. Fireball blows away the paper shield, then you suffer the effects of the fireball. Being 3m underground in concrete, fireball isn't penetrating that (well, let's hope not).

Let me borrow a point from another thread, which makes my case for me far better than I do. Changes by me:

When your entire interpretation of a rule hinges on your interpretation that using Unarmed Combat skill makes an attack an unarmed combat attack a spells physical effects will teleport through barriers just because the rules don't explicitly forbid it, then your interpretation of RAW is debatable, if not plain wrong.

[Irion]

@phlapjack77

You do know, you're basically saying even though many times people said you weren't being logical, you just ignored them because you knew you were right? This doesn't bode well...

See, you start reading things which simply are not there. I never said we did not finish the argument, I never said I ignored them. The point I was making was supposed to be simple.
To say "this is not logical" is used as a synonym for "I do not like it" or "I do not understand what you are talking about".
Knowing this you can explain why (in my example) the laws of nature are as they are and why the experiment turned out the way it did.

Rules are not some god-given thing unto themselves. When we read them, and apply logic, then we're cooking with gas. We're not (trying to) apply logic to magic, we're applying logic to the rules in the book that talk about magic.

Like I said, I find the word logic missused a lot. You for example do not apply logic to the rules. You look for a suitable outcome and interpret the rules to meet this end. This is exactly the other way round. Mardrax as a matter of fact is really applying logic to the rules. He looks what statements they give and he is following this path till he gets the answer he was looking for. (Well, I think he is not strict enough so)

Logic is very easy to use if you do not wish for a certain outcome or do not want to arguee a certain way. But (and this is a big BUT) logic is very "strong". Mostly to "strong" for the rules. Since it assumes the writers were able to do the same (and did so). Mostly they did not, because our every day language mostly does not follow the laws of logic.
(A good example is: Go to the supermarket and bring a bread. If they have any eggs, bring 6. So if you follow logic on this one, you would bring back 6 breads if the supermarket had any eggs.)
This is the hard part: You are not apply any hidden assumptions in logic. So any assumption has to be declared. And if we are talking about the rules, any assumption has to be made by the rules!
So logic is able to give you (very often) a SINGLE solution, you often do not want to apply it so.

So lets go:

Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Spellcasting + Magic Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. Indirect Combat spells generate a spell construct at the point of origin (the caster) which travels down the mystic link to the chosen target (see Choose a Target, p. 183), whereupon it discharges and the effect defined in the spell description manifests.

Well this is the first part. The caster is hitting a designated area, from which he may see the center. So NO COVER and a simple success test.

The spell traverses the distance between the caster and the target near instantly, but travels over the physical or astral plane to do so only to take effect when it “hits”. Hence, Indirect Spells are handled as ranged attacks and require a physically solid target or astrally active target to hit. As they travel down the link to the chosen target such effects may be impeded by physical obstacles or mana barriers. They may impact transparent obstacles (such as glass) and do not “bounce” off reflective surfaces used for line of sight. Instead the spell takes effect at the point of contact with an obstructing barrier. In the case of mana barriers, use the standard rules for casting through barriers, but if the spell’s Force is insufficient to beat the mana barrier it “fizzles” at the point of contact with the barrier.

We assumed free Line of Sight. So here are no Problems.

If the spell reaches the chosen target and it fails to dodge with Reaction (+ Counterspelling, if available), the target then resists damage with Body + half Impact armor. Each hit reduces the Damage Value. If the modified spell DV does not exceed the modified Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun. Note that nonliving objects resist damage from an Indirect Combat spell with their Armor rating x2 (see Barriers, p. 166).
Note that unlike other spells, Indirect Combat spells may affect other targets that the caster cannot see if they are caught within the spell’s area of effect.

Well, since "Nothing" does not get to dodge or something. The spell effects apply. (And the poor Air burns)

Now what are the effects of area effect spells:

Some spells target areas or points in space; in this case the caster must be able to see the center of the area affected. All visible targets within the area are affected; area spells can affect more than one target at a time. The base radius for all area spells is the Force in meters. Area spells affect all valid targets within the radius of effect, friend and foe alike (including the caster).

What is a valid target?
Well, as you see in the Core rules (Awakened World) a valid target for a indirect Area combat spell has to "Be on the same plane as the spell". More is not applyed.

So now we have to look up, what happens:

If the
spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor
(+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the
Damage Value.If the

So you get your Body and half the impact armor to resist. The problem here is, the spell already hit the "target" and is now "affecting every valid target in area".
Because if you would dodge the spell you would not be affected, but since the rules stats, that you are affected you do not get to dodge. (Logic is fun)

Do you get armor bonus from beeing behind behind a barrier.
Lets consult the barrier rules for that. The only thing I am finding is "Shooting through barriers".

If a character wants to shoot through a barrier to hit a target
behind it, add the barrier’s Armor rating to whatever armor the
target already possesses. The attacker also suffers a –6 Blind Fire
dice pool modifier because he cannot see the intended target, unless
the barrier is transparent.
If the weapon’s modified Damage Value does not exceed the
barrier’s Armor rating (modified by the weapon’s AP), then the
weapon is simply not strong enough to pierce the barrier, and the
attack automatically fails.

Well, but we are not shooting through a barrier. We could assume the fireball would have to. But as I am limited by the laws of logic, I do not get to "assume".
So no, you only apply the armor you are wearing+magic+natural+cyber/bio.

When your entire interpretation of a rule hinges on your interpretation that using Unarmed Combat skill makes an attack an unarmed combat attack a spells physical effects will teleport through barriers just because the rules don't explicitly forbid it, then your interpretation of RAW is debatable, if not plain wrong.

As I pointed out in the thread elemental aura would be applyed if you were looking at RAW only AND ASSUMING MAGICAL FINGERS IS A UNARMED ATTACK BY THE CHARACTER. The only reason Critical strike did not work (under this ruling) was, that the changed DV did not affect the DV of magical fingers.

It could also be argued non of them would apply because Magic fingers is not a unarmed attack by the character. As I pointed out, if you apply logic you do not get to assume, so this interpretation would be it.

Your problem is, that for barriers to have any affect, it would have to be said they do. (If you go strict by logic)
It is not stated anywhere, so they do not.

You make the the big mistake to confuse logical with resonable. This two words do not mean the same thing.
On the other hand, everything said, once does not have to be repeated to be true.

Please try to use some logic, here, even though I know you admitted you're not good at it above.

Oh, I think we had a misunderstanding before. I am quite good at logic and I really love logic thinking exercises. But, well you have seen in the post above...
Lets just say, logic is not good for the rules of an RPG. Reason is a much better consultant. (But you can't make any RAW arguments with him, thats the bad thing.)

[phlapjack77]

Your problem is, that for barriers to have any affect, it would have to be said they do. (If you go strict by logic)
It is not stated anywhere, so they do not.

And your problem is, that for barriers to have NO effect, it would have to be said they don't. Do you see? It says nothing either way, but leaves it a gray area.

So no, there is no RAW on this. I think (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well, but we are not shooting through a barrier. We could assume the fireball would have to. But as I am limited by the laws of logic, I do not get to "assume".
So no, you only apply the armor you are wearing+magic+natural+cyber/bio.

You miss a very important distinction here, though Irion. For anything on the other side of a Barrier to be affected BY ANYTHING, you must be able to penetrate the barrier. If you cannot penetrate the barrier, then you can not affect the individuals on the other side.

A Fireball MUST penetrate a barrier that it encounters, else it will not deal damage to the other side. If it can penetrate said barrier, then sure, the suckers on the other side of said barrier are in for a world of hurt. If not, then they are not. Elemental Effects still follow the laws of physics (Thus the term Elemental Effects. They are a real manifestation of energy that exists on the physical plane). If you wish to ignore said Laws, then use a Direct Damage Spell. At which point you cannot affect anyone that you cannot actually see.

[Mardrax]

@Irion: Thank you for pointing out something I have indeed missed. It seems the strictest reading of RAW might allow for only one defense test, by the target. The phrasing of "affect all valid targets" seems to reinforce that. The interpretation of "affecting" to mean they get to 'dodge' as well seems equally valid than interpreting it to mean they get to resist. When exactly the area effect kicks in is unclear, and I don't think there's a solid case to apply it before or after the reactive test.
I'd tend to go with having it kick in before reactive tests, interpreting "taking effect" meaning everyone in F meters gets to dodge. I'll immediately concede RAW isn't clear cut at all here though, so I am taking the weaker path of reason to deduce RAI here.

Again I repeat myself: RAW is entirely clear on when cover applies. Cover applies (as a +2 or +4 bonus) to the defensive roll a character makes against ranged attacks.. Since the opposed spellcasting test is handled "like a ranged combat attack" Cover applies to it. The page 183 rule is overruled, as for indirect combat spells, all ranged attack rules apply.
Everyone who gets a reactive roll against the spell enjoys cover benefits.

And again, I repeat myself: in no way does cover ever mean an attack can't be made at all.

@TJ: This is an assumption you're making. You're assuming that the spell effect needs to penetrate barriers. Apart from when travelling from caster to intended point of impact though, this is never mentioned. The entire "Fireball creates an explosion that starts where the spell is targetted, and travels F meters outward from there, and is stopped by physical barriers" liine of thought is an assumption that is wholly unsupported by RAW, even if it is derived from reason as applied to RAW.
The conclusion people reach that since armor counts in the resistance test, physical barriers stop the blast is a fallacy on two counts:
1) That half armor applies does not mean physical barriers do. All it means is that half armor applies.
2) It works from the assumption that there is a blast moving outward at all.
In the above, you can exchange "cover" for "armor" and "reactive" for "resistance", since that conclusion is equally invalid. Again, working purely from logic. Reason might indicate different, but that's not the point.

@phlapjack:
My interpretation does not hinge on the rules not forbidding anything. My interpretation hinges on the fact that rules never state anything about having to pass through barriers to begin with. In fact, about having to "pass" or "move" or "teleport" at all. Since the assumption that they do is one based wholly on RAI and nowhere on RAW. This is where I invoke Ockham's Razor and say you're basing a conclusion off an unnecessary assumption. Unnecessary because it is in no way required to adjucate how RAW works.

For you to say my discussion relies on handwavium to reach my conclusion is mostly ignorance, and I'll advise you to re-read what I've said in those instances, and to what point of what discussion it was contributing. I have relied on the letter of RAW sans assumptions where the topic of discussion required it, and where the letter of RAW allowed it, indicating where something was worded ambiguously to allow multiple interpretations.
That this thread started out on a question (that inquired to people's use of handwavium where RAW fails) wholly unrelated to the topic being discussed does not change or devaluate the topic or the arguments of current discussion.

[Irion]

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

You miss a very important distinction here, though Irion. For anything on the other side of a Barrier to be affected BY ANYTHING, you must be able to penetrate the barrier. If you cannot penetrate the barrier, then you can not affect the individuals on the other side.

No, this is the point we are going over all the time. The crux is, that everything in a Force m Radius is affected. There is no limitation applied (And if you stick to a logical interpretation you can not argue with explosives or anything, because there is no referance).

A Fireball MUST penetrate a barrier that it encounters, else it will not deal damage to the other side. If it can penetrate said barrier, then sure, the suckers on the other side of said barrier are in for a world of hurt. If not, then they are not. Elemental Effects still follow the laws of physics (Thus the term Elemental Effects.

If you put use a logical interpretation of the rules it does not have to. Surroundings are not taken into account to check who is affected and who is not.

(Thus the term Elemental Effects. They are a real manifestation of energy that exists on the physical plane)

Well, but you have no idea where it manifests. You assume they manifest in the middle and expand from there. But a matter of fact this is even contradicted by the damage code. (If you would start to apply the laws of physics or the laws of explosives found in SR. )
The interpretation (this is not a logical deduction) fitting the description best is, that the element is created everywhere in the area equally. Thus the equal damage at every point in the circle.


@phlapjack77

And your problem is, that for barriers to have NO effect, it would have to be said they don't. Do you see? It says nothing either way, but leaves it a gray area.

No. I told you before and I tell you again.
From a logic point of view standing behind a wall protects you as much as having a charisma of 6 or tits or wearing a beard (or to become more resonable: Why do not dwarfs take less damage, since they are smaler?) .
So why should I apply one of them and not all of them?



You go off the track by thinking it is more likely for a fireball to work like a granade then to just affect everything in the area.
It is not. Why should it be? And even to validate more likely you would have to start with fuzzy logic.
Like I said, this is the hardest part of making a logical argument. You have to name your assumptions and you are not allowed to bring some to the table without introducing them first. (Well, some I skipped because I am too lazzy. The once necessary to make sence of the letters written in the book at all, for example. As: The language we are writing in is english. The meaning of the words we are using is to be found in a english dictionary.)
If you would go with the assumption: "A fireball works like firing a bullet from the center of the Zone at everyone in the Zone", then your interpretation would be the logical conclusion of the rules and this assumption. But this assumption is very specific and not given anywhere. And it is not common ground, as far as I can tell.

I try not to use any assumption exept the ones needed in any case.

[phlapjack77]

My interpretation does not hinge on the rules not forbidding anything. My interpretation hinges on the fact that rules never state anything about having to pass through barriers to begin with. In fact, about having to "pass" or "move" or "teleport" at all. Since the assumption that they do is one based wholly on RAI and nowhere on RAW.

Oh ho! So you're admitting it's an interpretation. You're telling us what you think the RAI is, not the RAW. You can stop all the "this is RAW!" stuff now. Thanks for admitting it, finally (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[phlapjack77]

No. I told you before and I tell you again.
From a logic point of view standing behind a wall protects you as much as having a charisma of 6 or tits or wearing a beard (or to become more resonable: Why do not dwarfs take less damage, since they are smaler?) .
So why should I apply one of them and not all of them?

You go off the track by thinking it is more likely for a fireball to work like a granade then to just affect everything in the area.
It is not. Why should it be? And even to validate more likely you would have to start with fuzzy logic.
Like I said, this is the hardest part of making a logical argument. You have to name your assumptions and you are not allowed to bring some to the table without introducing them first. (Well, some I skipped because I am too lazzy. The once necessary to make sence of the letters written in the book at all, for example. As: The language we are writing in is english. The meaning of the words we are using is to be found in a english dictionary.)
If you would go with the assumption: "A fireball works like firing a bullet from the center of the Zone at everyone in the Zone", then your interpretation would be the logical conclusion of the rules and this assumption. But this assumption is very specific and not given anywhere. And it is not common ground, as far as I can tell.

I try not to use any assumption exept the ones needed in any case.

For all the arguing going on, you did make me laugh with your "charisma, tits, or beard" statement.

Back on track, what? You're saying standing behind a wall doesn't protect you? From what? I have no idea what you're saying here. I think you're trying to talk about the AoE thing, but the message is pretty garbled.

Neither is your "RAW" argument well-supported. All you can do is cite a lack of any rule specifically stating that a barrier would help. But why should it be stated explicitly? We already have barrier rules, we already have descriptions like "physical effect" and "external damaging medium", and we know how physical effects work. Why does armor resist? "Just because" isn't a good answer, btw.

No, we can rely on our critical thinking skills to realize that external damaging media work exactly as we would expect them to, unless the rules specifically say otherwise.

[Mardrax]

Oh ho! So you're admitting it's an interpretation. You're telling us what you think the RAI is, not the RAW. You can stop all the "this is RAW!" stuff now. Thanks for admitting it, finally (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

1) Any use of language depends on interpretation. Interpretation of language is commonly bound by commonly norms, accepted by all users of said language, usually to be found in a dictionary.

2) RAW is what "the books" say, as judged by these norms. RAW does not preclude interpretation. It is in fact dependant on it, as "the books" are written in English. See premise 1 for further information.

Assumptions that go beyond what "the books" say are not. Ditto for extrapolations. Ditto for "but this is what they meant to say. This is all RAI, as they require more interpretation than standard use of language would necessitate.

The assumption that the area indirect combat spells need a clear line of effect from their target spot, or center to any targets in their area in order to affect them is a RAI assumption.
The assumption that there is any movement involved whatsoever in the casting of such a spell, beyond the movement from caster to target is an RAI assumption.

Hence saying that being on the other side of a wall will prevent you from being affected by a Whateverball is a conclusion based on RAI, and hence, not RAW.

If anyone can provide a RAW clause to support this RAI assumption, that would change.

Nice play on words. Nice baiting. No go though.