Casting without LOS - Dumpshock Forums

Casting without LOS

Options

Tarantula

Sep 14 2007, 05:06 AM

Post #451

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Act as if you haven't done the same thing for the countless number of pages of this thread all you like. You spewing out the same, tired diatribe that has -no- solid backing in the rules is no different than anyone else doing the same thing. No matter how glorified and righteous you think your opinion is in your own head.

the hell i have. yes, i'm basing my conclusions on a few small points. that's because i find these points to be the most relevant ones to my argument. that's completely different from what you and others are doing, which is to ignore the points i make. i have provided a response to every single point anyone in this thread has made. if my responses have been unconvincing, fine--disprove them. but don't tell me i haven't been responding when you don't even have the common courtesy to read the responses i've posted.

You've yet to address the point that in Augmentation 160, under the heading Targeting and Magic, "When viewed from the astral, the living presence within a cyborg cannot be seen through the opaque drone body (unless the astral form sticks its head through the drone body’s shadow and into the brain’s encapsulated aura)."

How does this not prove that the point of perception is the head of the astral form? This means it isn't solely the eye sockets, or anywhere else (foot, hand, etc..) of the astral form, only the head. I'd love a counterpoint on this one, with a quote from the book.

Fortune View Member Profile	Sep 14 2007, 06:05 AM Post #452
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	As was said, it does not disprove the area of the eyes as being the POV, as they are (conveniently or not) located in the head.

NightmareX View Member Profile	Sep 14 2007, 06:56 AM Post #453
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 831 Joined: 5-September 05 From: LAX, UCAS Member No.: 7,687	marvels I can't believe this is still going on strong.

darthmord View Member Profile	Sep 14 2007, 12:49 PM Post #454
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548	It's only going on because humans by their very natures... cannot agree on the definition of "is". Couple that with folks who wouldn't admit to being soaked to the bone while standing outside in a downpour (ie: they won't admit they are wrong), you get this thread. There are several great people here. I love chatting with them here on Dumpshock. I'm just glad I don't and won't ever have the chance to game with them. Some of their interpretations of RAW are simply mind boggling IMO.

Tarantula View Member Profile	Sep 14 2007, 03:28 PM Post #455
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686	Yes Fortune, and my point is it doesn't explicitly name the eyes only. It states the head. Which includes all portions of the head (nose, ears, chin, forehead, etc.). He has yet to address why covering only part of the head (the eyes) would result in a target hidden modifier, when the entirety of the head is used for perception.

Fortune

Sep 14 2007, 03:34 PM

Post #456

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Yes Fortune, and my point is it doesn't explicitly name the eyes only. It states the head.

How would you word that particular sentence to represent that the eyes need to penetrate in order to gain LOS without using the word 'head'? I am curious, because the wording would be extremely clumsy.

Tarantula View Member Profile	Sep 14 2007, 03:44 PM Post #457
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686	I would change the wording from "unless the astral form sticks its head through the drone body's shadow and into the brain's encapsulated area" to "unless the astral form passes through the drone body's shadow and looks into the brain's encapsulated area"

Apathy

Sep 14 2007, 04:17 PM

Post #458

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 31-January 04
From: Reston VA, USA
Member No.: 6,046

QUOTE (Tarantula @ Sep 14 2007, 10:44 AM)

I would change the wording from "unless the astral form sticks its head through the drone body's shadow and into the brain's encapsulated area" to "unless the astral form passes through the drone body's shadow and looks into the brain's encapsulated area"

That's the wording you'd need to use if you wanted the rules to support the 'any part of aura/astral body can percieve' view, since it doesn't specify 'head' or 'eyes'. With that wording, you could still argue that you could look in the drone by sticking in a finger.

If you wanted to write the sentence in a way that support the notion that the eyes (and only the eyes) are the perceiving POV, how would you write it? It is very unusual grammer to say "unless the astral form's eyes pass through the drone body's shadow and look into the brain's encapsulated area." It makes it sound like the eyes are somehow separate from the rest of the body.

Essentially, you can't put your eyes in the drone without putting your head in the drone.

Tarantula View Member Profile	Sep 14 2007, 04:21 PM Post #459
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686	If the rest of the books already supported the eyes being the POV by stating so, then the writing as it is would work. My new wording simply left the level of ambiguity there that was present before. Since the other books don't actually specify what part of an astral form does the perceiving, all we have narrowed it down to via this passage from Aug is that the head does. Nothing contradicts it, and it doesn't specify eyes. Thusly, the entire head is the point of perception (which does fit with 'mind' and it being a psychic sense as well).

darthmord

Sep 14 2007, 06:48 PM

Post #460

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,245
Joined: 27-April 07
From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia
Member No.: 11,548

QUOTE (Apathy)

QUOTE (Tarantula @ Sep 14 2007, 10:44 AM)

I would change the wording from "unless the astral form sticks its head through the drone body's shadow and into the brain's encapsulated area" to "unless the astral form passes through the drone body's shadow and looks into the brain's encapsulated area"

That's the wording you'd need to use if you wanted the rules to support the 'any part of aura/astral body can percieve' view, since it doesn't specify 'head' or 'eyes'. With that wording, you could still argue that you could look in the drone by sticking in a finger.

If you wanted to write the sentence in a way that support the notion that the eyes (and only the eyes) are the perceiving POV, how would you write it? It is very unusual grammer to say "unless the astral form's eyes pass through the drone body's shadow and look into the brain's encapsulated area." It makes it sound like the eyes are somehow separate from the rest of the body.

Essentially, you can't put your eyes in the drone without putting your head in the drone.

The text for Astral Perception would have to state that AP comes from the eyes (how mfb is treating astral perception as working). Then the suggested wording by Tarantula would work as sticking the head through would typically mean the eyes are there to do their part. But as we all know, the two books covering this are very clear that Astral Perception is a psychic sense, not a physical one.

It's why I have repeatedly stated the rules are too vague / incomplete in comparison to earlier editions.

I personally find the idea that a blindfold is able to stop a psychic sense from functioning to be quite laughable. If that is to be the case, then Magneto went about trying to stop Charles Xavier from interfering with his plans the wrong way. (Yes, I know I'm mixing my genres but it gets the point across.)

Eh, whatever. I'll just hang around in this thread for the train wreck value.

Tarantula

Sep 14 2007, 07:47 PM

Post #461

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686

QUOTE (darthmord)

It's why I have repeatedly stated the rules are too vague / incomplete in comparison to earlier editions.

Except it isn't anymore. Its been stated in 4th ed that it is from the astral form's head. Since it isn't any more specific than that, its the whole head.

Apathy

Sep 14 2007, 08:47 PM

Post #462

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 31-January 04
From: Reston VA, USA
Member No.: 6,046

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Except it isn't anymore. Its been stated in 4th ed that it is from the astral form's head. Since it isn't any more specific than that, its the whole head.

That's an assumption which might or might not be valid. The text neither says 'any part of the head', nor 'the part of the head that corrolates to the eyes'. My hair is part of my head, but if I grow out a six foot ponytail I don't expect to astrally see around corners with it.

I think neither your interpretation, nor mfb's interpretation, are expressly confirmed or denied by the RAW. Both opinions require assumptions and extrapolation beyond the stated rules in order to prove. That said, they both work, and are not inconsistent with any rules.

Also, they both are so similar to one another that they're functionally the same.

You both agree that perception happens in a piece of the astral body rather than the whole body.
You both agree that it happens at the astral body, rather than the aura, which would extend several inches past the body and allow things like astral perception through walls while not projecting.
The POV of the head vs the POV of the eyes is essentially the same.

At this point, the two of you are making mountains out of mole-hills.

The only part of this that is significantly impacted by the head-vs-eyes debate is that transparent objects now block perception. I really dislike this rule, and would probably house-rule it away in my games. But that's a house rule, not RAW. Because of this rule, glasses or contact block perception if it comes from the eyes, and helmets with visors block perception regardless of whether it comes from the eyes or from the head.

Tarantula

Sep 15 2007, 04:16 AM

Post #463

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686

QUOTE (Apathy)

That's an assumption which might or might not be valid. The text neither says 'any part of the head', nor 'the part of the head that corrolates to the eyes'. My hair is part of my head, but if I grow out a six foot ponytail I don't expect to astrally see around corners with it.

No, it isn't an assumption. The text states head. The whole thing. The entirety of the head does the perceiving. Why? Because the text doesn't specify a part of the head. Would I give you a penalty for having part of your head covered (by say, a blindfold or goggles?) yes, for astral clutter. Say, -4 for blindfold, -3 goggles, -2 glasses, and -1 contacts. Its in the way, but not entirely.

Hair is typically referred to as being on the head, not a part of it. Thusly, you can't perceive via your hair.

QUOTE (Apathy)

I think neither your interpretation, nor mfb's interpretation, are expressly confirmed or denied by the RAW. Both opinions require assumptions and extrapolation beyond the stated rules in order to prove. That said, they both work, and are not inconsistent with any rules.

Also, they both are so similar to one another that they're functionally the same.

You both agree that perception happens in a piece of the astral body rather than the whole body.
You both agree that it happens at the astral body, rather than the aura, which would extend several inches past the body and allow things like astral perception through walls while not projecting.
The POV of the head vs the POV of the eyes is essentially the same.

At this point, the two of you are making mountains out of mole-hills.

The only part of this that is significantly impacted by the head-vs-eyes debate is that transparent objects now block perception. I really dislike this rule, and would probably house-rule it away in my games. But that's a house rule, not RAW. Because of this rule, glasses or contact block perception if it comes from the eyes, and helmets with visors block perception regardless of whether it comes from the eyes or from the head.

The other part of it that is significantly impacted is blindfolds. If your head does the perception, a blindfold is something in the way, but not entirely, the same as contacts, glasses, or goggles would be. If your eyes do the perception, any of the above (blindfold, contacts, glasses, goggles) would blind you. A helmet with a visor would blind both, and guess what, it pretty much resembles a magemask, which blocks it too.

Apathy

Sep 15 2007, 07:06 PM

Post #464

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 31-January 04
From: Reston VA, USA
Member No.: 6,046

QUOTE (Tarantula @ Sep 14 2007, 11:16 PM)

No, it isn't an assumption. The text states head. The whole thing. The entirety of the head does the perceiving. Why? Because the text doesn't specify a part of the head.

Yes it is an assumption. It's not an unreasonable one, but you're assuming that "head" = "any part of the head". It could very well be the way the writers intended it, but they did not specify that. If they wanted to eliminate any doubt, the writer could have said "unless the astral form sticks its any part of it's head through the drone body's shadow and into the brain's encapsulated area." They didn't specify this, so they leave it open to interpretation.

I understand that you believe that your opinion is the correct one. It very well may be. But I believe that failing to acknowledge when you're making assumptions makes you come across as more intent on 'winning' than on figuring out the truth.

Tarantula View Member Profile	Sep 15 2007, 07:20 PM Post #465
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686	No, I'm saying head means the entirety of the head. The fact that the entirety of your head does the perception, means that any part is capable of it, just not to the full extent as using the entirety of it. (Thus, why I would give a penalty depending on how much of the head was covered.)

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »