Possession and Attribute Maximums.

Possession and Attribute Maximums., Does the physical form limit the Spirit?

Magus View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 06:20 AM Post #51
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 617 Joined: 28-May 03 From: Orlando Member No.: 4,644	But there is this one other Mage character who gets his rocks off using mind manipulation on everyone. Think of the fun man! Oh the jocularity of it all! Ha Haw!! :spin:

Synner

Jun 6 2007, 08:09 AM

Post #52

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 6 2007, 02:35 AM)

QUOTE

A ward's frame of reference is not the "largest physical object" that the ward can encompass, but rather its relation with its anchor when the ward is raised (note the anchor must be inside the ward).

Assume a ward anchored to a rock in a cargo container; the ward is in the same size, shape, and position as the container.

If I go inside and move the rock, the ward collapses, right?

Yep. Some leeway should be given as to what constitutes moving it but if it moves significantly from its original position then the ward collapses. Also if the anchor is destroyed the ward collapses.

QUOTE

If a crane moves the rock by lifting the cargo container, the ward does not collapse, but rather moves, right?

The container example assumes the rock or magical circle or whatever is given a relatively stable base so that it might rock, but it wouldn't slide to the other side of the container - this could have been clearer.

QUOTE

If this last is correct, how is this not moving the ward? What forces are at work that allow the ward to move? Why does the ward collapse when I change its position relative to the warded area, but not the crane? Is the cargo container somehow imparted some magical properties because it happens to occupy a space that corresponds to the warded area, even though it is not the anchor?

Seem my response above. Placing a physical anchor for a ward in a moving object assumes you take care to fix it (the anchor) in place somehow. Were it not fixed and the crane's movement made the rock/candle/whatever slide to one end of the container it would pop the ward.

QUOTE

A ward must maintain its relative frame of reference with regards to its anchor (though that anchor may move around as long as the ward retains its shape). For instance: I want to ward a room. I tell the gamemaster that I want the ward to conform to the walls of the room (although I could tell him I want the ward to conform to a 5m³ of empty air in the middle of the room). I use the aforementioned rock/a magic circle/a series of candles in the center of the ward as the anchor. Once the ward is created, that relative frame of reference (with regards to the anchor) cannot be changed without disrupting the ward. Hence if the rock/circle/candles are kicked away, the ward is disrupted because the walls remain where they were and the anchor moves.

Would the ward collapse if the walls are torn down but the anchor left undisturbed? If not, why is the position of the walls important if the entire room were moved? If so, would a person or large object entering or leaving the warded area cause it to collapse because the relative area within the warded area has changed?

Actually this is another thing we intend to visit in the next FAQ.

If the warded perimeter conforms to a physical reference (such as the walls of a building or the chassis of a van) and that physical reference is destroyed or seriously damaged then the ward collapses.

You might ask then why ever use a physical reference for the limits of a ward (ie. why not just ward a dome of "empty" space inside a room rather than its walls). Well, the best reason to do this is to hide it. If the ward conforms to the walls, the astral shadow of the physical wall hides the limits of the ward, this is convenient in a number of ways not least of which is to avoid people peeking in from "unwarded" corners of a room or vehicle.

During development we did discuss whether or not all wards should be limited to enclosed areas - but it was decided not to go with that option.

QUOTE

Were the walls able to move and maintain the same frame of reference with the moving rock/circle/candle (such as in the case of a container) then the ward would not collapse (and yes, this works much the same when warding in the open air though there the ground poses a problem, the anchor must be a meter off the ground if you stick to the rules literally). Hence you can ward a container or a car as long as the anchor remains static with regards to the ward. If the anchor moves the limits of the ward must be able to move with it. [emphasis mine]

If the anchor is moved, what is keeping the ward from being able to move with it? Sure, the ground is an astral presence, but what if my rock was in a skyscraper? Are the physical walls somehow affecting the astral construct of the ward without being anchors themselves? It seems to me that the rules are fairly explicit that the anchor is what is important to a ward, and not what it envelops.

Not exactly. While the anchor is important (it is the "foundation pillar" of the ward), the limits and shape of a ward are also determined when it is created and they cannot change. Should they conform to some physical element then that frame of reference cannot change either.

QUOTE

The thing to grasp is that a ward's frame of reference is internal. What matters is that it remains at the same relative distance it was originally raised at with regards to its physical anchor (which must be inside it - see your quote below).

So I can actually kick an anchor placed on top of a building, and as long as the ward moved with the rock, it would not collapse? If not the anchor, what keeps a ward in place when it is in a room, the walls?

See above.

QUOTE

All this means is that a ward cannot be picked up and moved.

Except that the FAQ and your explanation seem to say that wards can be picked up and moved, albeit only when their shape happens to coincide with some physical object.

No. At most you could physically pick up and move the anchor. Since the anchor itself is a physical reference and not an astral one then the "wards are not portable astral constructs" remains true. There is no means of moving the ward on the astral.

odinson

Jun 6 2007, 08:25 AM

Post #53

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383

QUOTE (Synner)

QUOTE

Were the walls able to move and maintain the same frame of reference with the moving rock/circle/candle (such as in the case of a container) then the ward would not collapse (and yes, this works much the same when warding in the open air though there the ground poses a problem, the anchor must be a meter off the ground if you stick to the rules literally). Hence you can ward a container or a car as long as the anchor remains static with regards to the ward. If the anchor moves the limits of the ward must be able to move with it. [emphasis mine]

If the anchor is moved, what is keeping the ward from being able to move with it? Sure, the ground is an astral presence, but what if my rock was in a skyscraper? Are the physical walls somehow affecting the astral construct of the ward without being anchors themselves? It seems to me that the rules are fairly explicit that the anchor is what is important to a ward, and not what it envelops.

Not exactly. While the anchor is important (it is the "foundation pillar" of the ward), the limits and shape of a ward are also determined when it is created and they cannot change. Should they conform to some physical element then that frame of reference cannot change either.

Does this mean that I can create a ward using a rock as an anchor and if I performed the ritual on a platform at least a meter off the ground I could make a ward that had no barriers conforming with the ground or any walls and I could pick up the rock and move it around?

Also the anchor in the container has to be at least 1 meter from all edges of the container right? Does that mean that the anchor is on a platform at least 1 meter tall?

Synner View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 08:38 AM Post #54
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185	Technically yes, though I'd advocate some leniency on the part of the gamemaster. The 1m in every direction rule was introduced to give wards a minimum amount of volume, not to unnecessarily restrict placing of anchors - for instance, in my game, I normally allow anchoring magic circles to be placed on the floor (assuming the floor is at least 50 cm thick).

odinson

Jun 6 2007, 08:57 AM

Post #55

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383

QUOTE (Synner)

Technically yes, though I'd advocate some leniency on the part of the gamemaster. The 1m in every direction rule was introduced to give wards a minimum amount of volume, not to unnecessarily restrict placing of anchors - for instance, in my game, I normally allow anchoring magic circles to be placed on the floor (assuming the floor is at least 50 cm thick).

a 50cm floor? how think do they build houses where you're from?

Aren't most floors built using 2x12s. if you add 2" for floor and ceiling on either side you're still only at 16". That gives you about 35 cm.

Now with the portable ward, does that means I can carry around a 2m sphere that magic can't be cast through? How is that not broken?

Aaron

Jun 6 2007, 11:53 AM

Post #56

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314

QUOTE

No. At most you could physically pick up and move the anchor. Since the anchor itself is a physical reference and not an astral one then the "wards are not portable astral constructs" remains true. There is no means of moving the ward on the astral.

If a car with an internal anchor duct-taped to the ceiling moves, and the ward moves with it, does the ward not move on the astral as well?

Also, with the container and the stable rock, if I'm astrally projecting and hovering above the container, and then a crane lifts the container and I encounter the ward, which moved: me or the ward?

QUOTE (Synner)

Actually this is another thing we intend to visit in the next FAQ.

I'm not entirely convinced that a FAQ would be strong enough. The RAW (both in SR and SM) contradict this ruling, and nowhere in either book do the rules suggest the FAQ ruling. One would need to include it in errata for both the main rule book and Street Magic. Not to mention that now there is an issue of wards encountering one another. Sure, one could apply the rules for being forced through a barrier, but which ward is "the barrier" through which the other ward is being forced?

The system described in the book (with wards that don't move at all, even when placed around cars) is simple and elegant already. It precludes any weirdness of wards-within-wards or using a warded box to disrupt astral forms. More importantly, it does not need any complicated explanation or inconsistent metaphysics to work. If one wants astral protection for that semi-trailer during shipment, have a magician cast Mana Barrier on it; that, at least, does not have movement restrictions placed on it by two rule books.

Synner

Jun 6 2007, 12:40 PM

Post #57

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (odinson)

QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 03:38 AM)

Technically yes, though I'd advocate some leniency on the part of the gamemaster. The 1m in every direction rule was introduced to give wards a minimum amount of volume, not to unnecessarily restrict placing of anchors - for instance, in my game, I normally allow anchoring magic circles to be placed on the floor (assuming the floor is at least 50 cm thick).

a 50cm floor? how think do they build houses where you're from?

Aren't most floors built using 2x12s. if you add 2" for floor and ceiling on either side you're still only at 16". That gives you about 35 cm.

Concrete and plasticrete floors (not walls) in modern corporate skyscrapers, secure areas of buildings, high tech research labs, etc tend to average between 30-50 cms thickness more if you have significant ventilation and wiring systems - which is close enough for me.

QUOTE

Now with the portable ward, does that means I can carry around a 2m sphere that magic can't be cast through? How is that not broken?

Broken as compared to a magical personal spell/astral barrier spell that doesn't cost any nuyen, can be turned on and off at will, and won't get knocked out permanently and/or set off all types of arcane alarms when it runs into another ward?

pbangarth

Jun 6 2007, 01:10 PM

Post #58

Old Man of the North

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 10,335
Joined: 14-August 03
From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 5,463

QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 08:40 AM)

Broken as compared to a magical personal spell/astral barrier spell that doesn't cost any nuyen, can be turned on and off at will, and won't get knocked out permanently and/or set off all types of arcane alarms when it runs into another ward?

.... BUT does not require being sustained, and can be made really tough through ritual magic .....

Broken may be too severe a word, but it does seem like a really powerful tool.

Edited, to make more sense.

This post has been edited by pbangarth: Jun 6 2007, 02:16 PM

Synner

Jun 6 2007, 01:12 PM

Post #59

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 6 2007, 11:53 AM)

QUOTE

No. At most you could physically pick up and move the anchor. Since the anchor itself is a physical reference and not an astral one then the "wards are not portable astral constructs" remains true. There is no means of moving the ward on the astral.

If a car with an internal anchor duct-taped to the ceiling moves, and the ward moves with it, does the ward not move on the astral as well?

Yes, the ward has moved and it has moved on the astral, this does not contradict the fact that it is not astrally portable. I believe that what we have here is a simply a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "portable."

It's physical form is portable, its astral form is not. Portable means that something "can be carried, transported or conveyed; easily transported by hand." (Webster's).

Nothing that I've said contradicts the fact that wards cannot be carried, transported or conveyed on the astral plane (hence "wards are not portable astral constructs" like say a focus. Wards can move however - if their physical anchor and its frame of reference can be carried, transported or conveyed on the physical plane.

QUOTE

Also, with the container and the stable rock, if I'm astrally projecting and hovering above the container, and then a crane lifts the container and I encounter the ward, which moved: me or the ward?

I'll reiterate again not being astrally portable does not mean a ward cannot be moved (as long as its the physical components doing the moving). In your example, the ward has moved and has encountered an astral/projecting presence - resolve as usual (pressing through barriers rules)

QUOTE

QUOTE (Synner)

Actually this is another thing we intend to visit in the next FAQ.

I'm not entirely convinced that a FAQ would be strong enough. The RAW (both in SR and SM) contradict this ruling, and nowhere in either book do the rules suggest the FAQ ruling. One would need to include it in errata for both the main rule book and Street Magic.

This "ruling" is in fact simply a clarification that reflects both the intention of the author and the developers. It is not contradicted in either of the books you quote to the best of my knowledge. Nowhere does it say that wards are static and immobile.

All the base book says is that "a ward cannot be moved from its physical
component to another location" it mentions nothing about what happens when the physical components (the physical anchor and the frame of reference) are themselves moved. What the FAQ clarifies is that as long as the relative relation of the physical elements of the ward are not disturbed while being physically moved then the ward itself will move.

Note that the wards require both a physical component for its anchor and for its limits.

QUOTE

Not to mention that now there is an issue of wards encountering one another. Sure, one could apply the rules for being forced through a barrier, but which ward is "the barrier" through which the other ward is being forced?

Under normal circumstances the one that is in motion should be the one that's pressing through the barrier.

QUOTE

The system described in the book (with wards that don't move at all, even when placed around cars) is simple and elegant already. It precludes any weirdness of wards-within-wards or using a warded box to disrupt astral forms. More importantly, it does not need any complicated explanation or inconsistent metaphysics to work. If one wants astral protection for that semi-trailer during shipment, have a magician cast Mana Barrier on it; that, at least, does not have movement restrictions placed on it by two rule books.

I repeat there is no contradiction.

Synner

Jun 6 2007, 02:43 PM

Post #60

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

QUOTE (pbangarth @ Jun 6 2007, 01:10 PM)

QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 08:40 AM)

Broken as compared to a magical personal spell/astral barrier spell that doesn't cost any nuyen, can be turned on and off at will, and won't get knocked out permanently and/or set off all types of arcane alarms when it runs into another ward?

.... and does not require being sustained, and can be made really tough through ritual magic .....

Broken may be too severe a word, but it does seem like a really powerful tool.

Let me correct myself. You still have to have a physical frame of reference besides the anchor, the limits of the ward need to be defined by physical elements (even if these are ancient standing stones, warding symbols scribbled on all walls, or a chalk circle marking the perimeter of the dome) - these are what must remain at the same relative distance to the anchor. Under the rules you can't actually walk around with a sphere of warded space with no physical delimitation.

odinson

Jun 6 2007, 04:08 PM

Post #61

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383

QUOTE (Synner)

QUOTE (pbangarth @ Jun 6 2007, 01:10 PM)

QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 08:40 AM)

Broken as compared to a magical personal spell/astral barrier spell that doesn't cost any nuyen, can be turned on and off at will, and won't get knocked out permanently and/or set off all types of arcane alarms when it runs into another ward?

.... and does not require being sustained, and can be made really tough through ritual magic .....

Broken may be too severe a word, but it does seem like a really powerful tool.

Let me correct myself. You still have to have a physical frame of reference besides the anchor, the limits of the ward need to be defined by physical elements (even if these are ancient standing stones, warding symbols scribbled on all walls, or a chalk circle marking the perimeter of the dome) - these are what must remain at the same relative distance to the anchor. Under the rules you can't actually walk around with a sphere of warded space with no physical delimitation.

If wards need a physical frame of reference then how can you have a ward in an unenclosed space? even if you went outside and had standing stones there would be no frame of re fence for the top of the ward. haveing a dome roof doesn't have a frame of reference? If you can have one dimension without a physical frame of reference then why not all of them?

Also where in RAW does it say you need a physical frame of reference other than an anchor.

DireRadiant View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 04:19 PM Post #62
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667	So the only way to have a ward fully enclose something is to ward a fully enclosed box? Is that really what you want? What's so hard about a ward extending through a non physical area as long as there is some physical anchor or dimension to map to? If you can't do this then wards are much less useful. Though easier to think about.

FrankTrollman View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 05:27 PM Post #63
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665	Each plane of the ward has to be limited by at least three points that are defined by physical objects. The standing stones scenario is the perfect example. Not only does the ward limits make a series of verticle planes which extend between the standing stones, but the tops of the stones mark points through which a horizontal plane can pass, capping the ward. This is how, for example, you can put a door in a ward. The physical door frame marks the limits of the plane which passes through the doorway. Or to put it another way: you don't have to cover the entire area in wrapping paper inscribed with protective symbols, you just have to tack up a symbol at each end-point of the space. A warded cube, for example, can be defined by 8 points. That's one point for each terminal corner, not infinity points for every point on the surface. -Frank

odinson

Jun 6 2007, 06:21 PM

Post #64

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383

QUOTE (FrankTrollman)

Each plane of the ward has to be limited by at least three points that are defined by physical objects. The standing stones scenario is the perfect example.

Not only does the ward limits make a series of verticle planes which extend between the standing stones, but the tops of the stones mark points through which a horizontal plane can pass, capping the ward. This is how, for example, you can put a door in a ward. The physical door frame marks the limits of the plane which passes through the doorway.

Or to put it another way: you don't have to cover the entire area in wrapping paper inscribed with protective symbols, you just have to tack up a symbol at each end-point of the space. A warded cube, for example, can be defined by 8 points.

That's one point for each terminal corner, not infinity points for every point on the surface.

-Frank

And thats RAW or just what you say?

FrankTrollman

Jun 6 2007, 06:34 PM

Post #65

Prime Runner

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665

QUOTE (odinson)

QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 6 2007, 12:27 PM)

Each plane of the ward has to be limited by at least three points that are defined by physical objects. The standing stones scenario is the perfect example.

Not only does the ward limits make a series of verticle planes which extend between the standing stones, but the tops of the stones mark points through which a horizontal plane can pass, capping the ward. This is how, for example, you can put a door in a ward. The physical door frame marks the limits of the plane which passes through the doorway.

Or to put it another way: you don't have to cover the entire area in wrapping paper inscribed with protective symbols, you just have to tack up a symbol at each end-point of the space. A warded cube, for example, can be defined by 8 points.

That's one point for each terminal corner, not infinity points for every point on the surface.

-Frank

And thats RAW or just what you say?

That's RAW, coupled of course with the explanatory text that came in the FAQ.

Note that RAW also allows you to connect terminal points with simple curves rather than planes, allowing you to make a simple circle of boundary and connect the dots with a domed arc.

That option, however, makes me uncomfortable and I don't normally use it. The rules don't define how steep a curve one is allowed to claim, meaning that it's quite easy to claim that you can make a very steep parabolic section with just three points, which seems a little bit like cheating. But it is RAW

-Frank

knasser View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 06:56 PM Post #66
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636	I'd like to have come across this thread sooner. I very strongly agree with Frank in that attributes should not be capped for possessed characters. I have a fair bit of experience with possession spirits in my game and I am also very familiar with how the numbers play out in practice. I too would very genuinely like to ask the developers to reconsider introducing caps and leave things as they are. Frank has made a very good point regarding the possessed and channeling mage being the de facto replacement for the materialised spirit and that therefore one should not be unfairly limited in relation to the other. I'd also like to add that most of the points people have made about casually possessing security guards, team members, etc. are balanced in practice. Firstly, possession attempts by low force spirits quite frequently fail, whilst a materialised spirit is guaranteed to show up and start drawing fire and inflicting damage right away. Another draw back of low-force spirits is that even if you persuade your team mates to allow possession or channel the spirit yourself, you weaken the possessed character considerably by lowering mental and special attributes. You can normally rule out edge use for a start. As to stomping around the run site with possessed gang-members or troll zombies, quite frankly the last thing you need is a Force 3 spirit with no stealth skills. I'm not saying low-force possession spirits are useless. There are lots of creative uses for them, but they do have some big restrictions in comparison to the materialised versions. At high force, they have more power, but then so do materialised spirits and as Frank has pointed out, a mage that channels the spirit is halving his avenues of attack against the enemy, whilst the team mate samurai could well have lost points in his firearms skill or other areas along with access to his edge pool. Yes, you still have the option to possess one of the enemy, but you don't want to be blowing a high-force spirit on bog-standard security guards. You'll save it for the Renraku samurai. A force 6 spirit having, incidentally, only around a 63% chance of successful possesion against a red samurai vs. the 100% chance of materialising a normal spirit has. I don't really have time to go into things in detail here. There was a very long thread elsewhere I can dig up where I went through a lot of number crunching and other points. I think the general consensus that emerged there was that possession was good, but in many ways weaker than materialisation. They're a little bit of a scalpel compared to the swiss army knife that is materialisation. And capping them blunts that scalpel quite a bit. But I suppose one final issue would be that in capping this, the developers will rob many GMs of wonderful, frightening villains. When I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs, I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs. Seriously, I think the developers got it right the first time. All my experience and considerable number crunching says that it's good without the caps. I really, sincerely hope that the developers read this and change their mind. Thanks, -K. There are also many tactical advantages to

Kyoto Kid

Jun 6 2007, 07:15 PM

Post #67

Bushido Cowgirl

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490

QUOTE (Knasser)

But I suppose one final issue would be that in capping this, the developers will rob many GMs of wonderful, frightening villains. When I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs, I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs.

...shhh...don't give any spoilers away to my group :D

My main concern was dealing with powergamer PCs becoming way too ubermensch compared to the rest of the team and the NPCs. An initiate mage channelling a force 8 Spirit, yikes! I almost need a cyberzombie to counter that (but the rules for CZs are still somewhere out there beyond the blue event horizon).

Aaron

Jun 6 2007, 07:28 PM

Post #68

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314

QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 08:12 AM)

It's physical form is portable, its astral form is not. Portable means that something "can be carried, transported or conveyed; easily transported by hand." (Webster's).

Er ... that's the second definition. The first is "capable of being carried, transported or conveyed easily: a portable television." Although if you'd like to support your point by easily transporting a portable toilet by hand, I'll concede.

QUOTE (Synner)

Nothing that I've said contradicts the fact that wards cannot be carried, transported or conveyed on the astral plane (hence "wards are not portable astral constructs" like say a focus. Wards can move however - if their physical anchor and its frame of reference can be carried, transported or conveyed on the physical plane.

The link is between the anchor and the space being warded (SM, p. 123). That space can be open, empty space, as long as the anchor shares some of the space; says so on the same page.

QUOTE (Synner)

I'll reiterate again not being astrally portable does not mean a ward cannot be moved (as long as its the physical components doing the moving). In your example, the ward has moved and has encountered an astral/projecting presence - resolve as usual (pressing through barriers rules)

I'll bite; why is there nothing at all in the rules about wards encountering one another? Why is there explicit material about setting up a ward around, within, or overlapping an adjacent ward, but not intersecting as they move?

QUOTE (Synner)

This "ruling" is in fact simply a clarification that reflects both the intention of the author and the developers. It is not contradicted in either of the books you quote to the best of my knowledge. Nowhere does it say that wards are static and immobile.

But the "ruling" is incompatible with the rules. I've already posted my arguments for the contradictions. I have not seen arguments to the contrary. "The developers intended ..." is not a valid argument about what is written in the books; the Kessel Run is still measured in parsecs.

QUOTE (Synner)

All the base book says is that "a ward cannot be moved from its physical component to another location" it mentions nothing about what happens when the physical components (the physical anchor and the frame of reference) are themselves moved.

Is Street Magic fair game for this debate? Because then I'd mention "Wards are not portable astral objects. The warding ritual creates an astral link between the shadow of the physical anchor and the space being warded. If the physical anchor moves more than a few centimeters from its location at the time of the warding ritual, the entire ward collapses." Notice there's no mention of a frame of reference, just it's location. If I tear your bedroom out of your home and move it to Sao Paolo, has your bed moved from its location?

QUOTE (Synner)

What the FAQ clarifies is that as long as the relative relation of the physical elements of the ward are not disturbed while being physically moved then the ward itself will move.

So if I ward a car, the ward collapses if I open the door?

QUOTE

Note that the wards require both a physical component for its anchor and for its limits.

I can't seem to find wording to that effect. Where does it state that there has to be physical elements, aside from the anchor?

QUOTE (Synner)

Under normal circumstances the one that is in motion should be the one that's pressing through the barrier.

Why is that not explicit in the rules? In fact, the list of things that might accidentally pass through a mana barrier is exhaustive if wards are immobile.

QUOTE (Synner)

I repeat there is no contradiction.

And the printed evidence from the books that supports that argument is ...?

QUOTE (FrankTrollman)

That's RAW, coupled of course with the explanatory text that came in the FAQ.

Can we get a reference? Maybe some quoted text?

I don't think new material belongs in a FAQ. A FAQ contains explanations and examples from the rules. If you want to change what the rules say, put it in errata; otherwise you're just printing home rules, and I think that's a bit less than professional. Which may appropriate; game design isn't lucrative, after all, but it's still less than cool. That unnamed game from the wicked wizard of the pacific northwest might not be popular around here, but it raised the bar for tabletop RPGs. Shadowrun has a good strong concept and quality developers, and there's no reason it can't hit those marks.

odinson View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 07:29 PM Post #69
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 410 Joined: 5-April 07 From: Vancouver, BC Member No.: 11,383	damn too slow. Aaron is right though, an FAQ only clarifies rules. The errata is where changes should be made. If it's only found in the FAQ then it isn't RAW.

Moon-Hawk

Jun 6 2007, 07:31 PM

Post #70

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

An initiate mage channelling a force 8 Spirit, yikes!

I'm interested in this debate. Why is that so much scarier than a comparable initiate mage with a force 8 materialization spirit?
Is it just the poorly defined interaction of immunity to normal weapons and worn armor?

Aaron View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 07:39 PM Post #71
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314	Oh, and for the record, I think Frank's right about limits on possessed/inhabited attributes.

Big D View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 09:47 PM Post #72
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455	I'm starting to agree. Possession sounds scary. Dang scary. Especially the possession of opponents. It sounds fun to think of killing one guard with another, until you realize that your buddy could start blasting your team, and you can't stop him--without killing him. But, that said, a materializing spirit will kill you all just as dead. It just removes the "ick" factor.

Big D View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 09:58 PM Post #73
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455	Question on wards... In many threads here, they're referred to as a big source of wagemage income. And with this great portability, wouldn't they be ubiquitous? So, does every T-Bird and Citymaster pack a low-level ward? Every armored limo? Most guard stations? What about fighters or LS choppers (although I dunno if you could hide the rotors behind a ward)? Shouldn't expensive government or corp assets come with a reasonably-cheap ward? And what about drones, especially the bigger UAVs? Just how common are they?

snowRaven View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 10:06 PM Post #74
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,665 Joined: 26-April 03 From: Sweden Member No.: 4,516	Synner, if I understood your intent correctly the cap on attributes for possessed/inhabited vessels apply to ALL vessels, even inanimate ones? If that's correct, what would the caps of, say, a stone humunculi be? Or do you mean that a Troll possessed by a Force 12 spirit caps Body at 15, but a plasteel homunculi would get 20 and a Zombie could get 27?

hyzmarca View Member Profile	Jun 6 2007, 10:40 PM Post #75
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456	The wording of the rules about wards is not very clear and wards are poorly defined, in general. It seems apparent to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, the whole "anchor can't be moved" rule was created to allow open wards in exterior areas while forbidding ward bullets which it was always the intent to allow warded containers, though this is very contradictory. There is also the issue of nested wards being impossible. I understand why this is. Otherwise, it would be possible for a character to stack dozens of low-force wards millimeters from each other and force a character to combat multiple wards at once. This is obviously bad. However, the existence of warded luggage means that hot ward-on-ward action is inevitable and there needs to be some clarification about what happens when ward meets ward. Furthermore, the lack of nested wards means that magicians can never take their special luggage into their lodges, which kind of sucks. Of course, there are also issues of how wards are defined. In some ways, they act as full three-dimensional objects (no nesting) while in other ways they act as flat two-dimensional fences stretched around a three dimensional area (metaplanar bypass, forcing through).

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »