Mana Static, Rules Interpretation help Options

[Tarantula]

Not to quibble with someone who knows the rules way better than I do, but are you sure?

The section on p.196 seems pretty clear. Indirect Combat Spells that hit are resisted by Body + half Impact Armor + Counterspelling, but Elemental Indirect Combat Spells that hit are only resisted by Body + half Impact Armor. This would make sense to me, as the fire in a fireball is no different from the fire from an actual flamethrower, so jamming the mana around the target shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the damage.

It is quite clear. SR4, 196, "If the spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor (+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the Damage Value."

Counterspelling applies on the damage resistance test with indirect combat spells. Interestingly enough, because of how its worded, it might work on area indirect spells also, But I doubt it, as the characters weren't the target of the spell, the area was.

As far as how is a fireball's fire different from an actual flamethrowers? The actual flamethrower's fire comes from a pilot flame, and some flamable substance (gas, napalm, etc). Fireball comes from (you guessed it) MANA! So, jamming the mana should have an effect on the magically generated fire.



Frank: Can you clear up a couple of things?
1) Does counterspelling apply to indirect area spells, such as fireball? SR4, 173 decribes area spells as targetting "areas or points in space", affecting all the visible targets in the area. The Counterspelling descriptions on 175-176 say, "When a protected character is targetting with a spell, she rolls Counterspelling dice in addition to the appropriate attribute (Body or Willpower) for the resistance test." Since the spell targets the area, not the people, do they even get counterspelling at all? If so, then does a mage who is in the area a physical barrier is being cast around should get counterspelling against the barrier going up, right?

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Well, from the FAQ:

When casting an Indirect Combat spell, do you need to see the target? Or can you cast at a target completely behind cover since they use ranged combat rules?

You do need the see the primary target of the spell. However, as noted in the errata, Indirect Combat spells will affect other targets that are unseen by the caster as long as they are caught within the spell's area of effect.

Note that the same ruling for grenades applies to Indirect Combat spells cast "at the ground" -- if the attempt is to catch targets in the spell's effect radius, treat it as an Opposed Test, no matter where the spell is actually aimed.

so there has to be an actual, targetted character/creature even to cast the spell.

and from the main book:

If multiple protected characters are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.

I'm a little curious how multiple characters could be targetted by a single NON-area spell. Therefore, yes, counterspelling applies (once, for all,) and if it reduces the spellcasting hits to 0, then the spell fails, just as it does for a single-target spell.

[FrankTrollman]

Not to quibble with someone who knows the rules way better than I do, but are you sure?

The section on p.196 seems pretty clear. Indirect Combat Spells that hit are resisted by Body + half Impact Armor + Counterspelling, but Elemental Indirect Combat Spells that hit are only resisted by Body + half Impact Armor. This would make sense to me, as the fire in a fireball is no different from the fire from an actual flamethrower, so jamming the mana around the target shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the damage.

You'll note that page 196 says that:

These spells are resisted by only half the Impact armor rating (round up, as noted).

It doesn't mention Body or Counterspelling at all in the description of Elemental Effects. That doesn't mean that you don't add Counterspelling or don't add Body to the Damage Resistance roll, it just means that they restated the Armor effects for emphasis. The general rules for Indirect Combat Spells still apply, meaning that once you have been hit you still get to resist damage, using Body + Counterspelling + 1/2 Armor.

That being said, it wouldn't be a super big deal if you cut Counterspelling out of the equation all together. Since it only applies on the Damage Resistance Test rather than the Spell Resistance Test, we are never talking about spell negation - we are talking about a box or two of physical wounds one way or the other. It's only going to make the difference of a wound penalty about half the time.

Acid Ball is already a spell that you use on people who have a large amount of Counterspelling, and it's already a spell that does less damage when it works than Power Ball. Removing Counterspelling from the equation on the Acid Ball side will not change that basic comparison very much if at all. Either way I will still reach for the Power Ball against most enemies and spring for the Acid Ball against opponents with very high Object Resistance Ratings or who are covered by powerful Counterspelling.

-Frank

[Tarantula]

You'll note that page 196 says that: It doesn't mention Body or Counterspelling at all in the description of Elemental Effects. That doesn't mean that you don't add Counterspelling or don't add Body to the Damage Resistance roll, it just means that they restated the Armor effects for emphasis. The general rules for Indirect Combat Spells still apply, meaning that once you have been hit you still get to resist damage, using Body + Counterspelling + 1/2 Armor.

That being said, it wouldn't be a super big deal if you cut Counterspelling out of the equation all together. Since it only applies on the Damage Resistance Test rather than the Spell Resistance Test, we are never talking about spell negation - we are talking about a box or two of physical wounds one way or the other. It's only going to make the difference of a wound penalty about half the time.

Acid Ball is already a spell that you use on people who have a large amount of Counterspelling, and it's already a spell that does less damage when it works than Power Ball. Removing Counterspelling from the equation on the Acid Ball side will not change that basic comparison very much if at all. Either way I will still reach for the Power Ball against most enemies and spring for the Acid Ball against opponents with very high Object Resistance Ratings or who are covered by powerful Counterspelling.

-Frank

Frank, I wasn't asking whether it would imbalance things, but rather is it the intended way for it to work? Since area spells target an area or a point in space, then the characters who are being acid balled aren't the targets of the spell. Thusly, should they get counterspelling?

Obviously, with acid bolt, they are the target, and would get it as described under indirect combat spells.

Lastly, you didn't address the question of casting a physical barrier (dome style) around a mage who is actively counterspelling. He is as much a target of the spell as one getting acid bolted (i.e. they are both within the targetted area of the spell), so the rules should be the same regarding the use of counterspelling between them, right?

[FrankTrollman]

Tarantula I'm not really sure where you are going with that. An Indirect Combat Spell like Acid Ball does not have Counterspelling applied to the Spell Resistance Test. It has Counterspelling applied to the Damage Resistance Test. So characters who have Counterspelling on them will roll those extra dice if they are hit y the Acid Ball to reduce the damage they receive. But nothing special happens other than that.

Lastly, you didn't address the question of casting a physical barrier (dome style) around a mage who is actively counterspelling. He is as much a target of the spell as one getting acid bolted (i.e. they are both within the targetted area of the spell), so the rules should be the same regarding the use of counterspelling between them, right?

What? Physical Barrier does not "target" anything. It's not an opposed roll even, so Counterspelling only applies if you go in to dispel a currently active barrier.

-Frank

[Tarantula]

Tarantula I'm not really sure where you are going with that. An Indirect Combat Spell like Acid Ball does not have Counterspelling applied to the Spell Resistance Test. It has Counterspelling applied to the Damage Resistance Test. So characters who have Counterspelling on them will roll those extra dice if they are hit y the Acid Ball to reduce the damage they receive. But nothing special happens other than that.



What? Physical Barrier does not "target" anything. It's not an opposed roll even, so Counterspelling only applies if you go in to dispel a currently active barrier.

-Frank

Area spells are stated as targetting the area or point in space they affect. Not the characters within said point in space/area. Thusly, acid ball is not targetting the characters it damages, so they shouldn't get counterspelling because they weren't the target of the spell, the area was.

Likewise, physical barrier targets an area as well, thats where the barrier exists. You're right, its not an opposed roll, so what happens if I cast a force 6 physical barrier (withholding 5 dice to make it 1 meter area) as a dome exactly where someone is at? Do they get stuck? Do they go to one side or the other? Do they take damage? Does the spell just not work?

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

What, was my post invisible?

Once again:

When casting an Indirect Combat spell, do you need to see the target? Or can you cast at a target completely behind cover since they use ranged combat rules?

You do need the see the primary target of the spell. However, as noted in the errata, Indirect Combat spells will affect other targets that are unseen by the caster as long as they are caught within the spell's area of effect.

Note that the same ruling for grenades applies to Indirect Combat spells cast "at the ground" -- if the attempt is to catch targets in the spell's effect radius, treat it as an Opposed Test, no matter where the spell is actually aimed.

There is ALWAYS a primary target, even if the center of the spell is empty space.

[samuelbeckett]

Well, from the FAQ:


so there has to be an actual, targetted character/creature even to cast the spell.

and from the main book:


I'm a little curious how multiple characters could be targetted by a single NON-area spell. Therefore, yes, counterspelling applies (once, for all,) and if it reduces the spellcasting hits to 0, then the spell fails, just as it does for a single-target spell.

Cmon, you can't just pull quotes and ignore the numerous other quotes which don't support what you are saying.

Yes Counterspelling applies to the Resistance test for Indirect Combat Spells (as detailed on p.196) that is not the point of contention. The two points of contention have been:

1) Does Counterspelling for Spell Defense apply to spells that do not have a Resistance test? The RAW seems to clearly indicate this is not the case (see p.198 for an example of the difference between passive, success test based spells and active, opposed test spells).

2) Does Counterspelling for Spell Defense apply to Elemental Indirect Combat Spells? Again the RAW seems to indicate this is not the case, as the only Resistance test is the damage resistance, and that appears to say you can only add half Impact Armor to your Body. Yes, I appreciate Frank's point about it being repeated for emphasis, but it seems a bit ridiculous to me that they felt the need only to emphasize the half Impact Armor part and not the Counterspelling part (it seems odd that they felt the need to repeat it at all, given only a couple of paragraphs had passed).

So my position is that the RAW doesn't support the use of Counterspelling against non-resistance spells such as Mana Static, or against Elemental Indirect Combat spells such as Fireball.

[fulcra]

As usual, I started reading this thread thinking I knew all the rules, only to find myself thoroughly confused after. That, and my mage apparently now has a reason to take fireball.

Anyway... here's how I NOW read things, can someone confirm?

1) For 'Indirect" spells, whether Elemental, Area or not, counterspelling dice do not apply to the reaction test to dodge, but do assist in resistance of the damage if it hits. (noted are the opinions that it doesn't, but i'd say the intention of the book is that they do). That means you don't get counterspelling to avoid the touch effect of "Punch", but do get it to resist the damage, since it's an indirect touch base spell.

2) Spells that do not target anything (note, an area or point in space doesn't count as a 'target') can not be resisted. Thus, a mage does not get his counterspelling dice automatically to resist the effects of the spell. Examples are trying to trap someone in a Physical Barrier, punching someone with Magic Fingers, trying to see someone inside a "Shadow" spell, and getting caught in a Mana Static spell.

As far as I can tell, there are no rules for how to try and "trap" someone or "catch" someone in an area spell. Personally I'd treat it like an indirect combat spell that they can try to dodge, but dodging doesn't reduce the effect, it either hits or it doesn't. That assumes they're aware of the attack. You can't dodge an attack you're not aware of.

That leaves a couple questions in my mind still:

1) Why does everyone assume the force 7 spirit of man would catch himself in the area of affect. Even if in melee combat, he could always step back and cast the spell, getting everything just in front of him. There is room for house rules and targeting here, but ignore that. Point is, he doesn't have to get himself in the effect.

2) It would be pretty easy for a force 7 spirit of man to get 6 hits, if he used edge. Considering the up side of defeating all the enemy spirits if they were all grouped together, as a GM I'd probably say he does.

3) Does the spirit really have to resist the drain of the spell with his reduced force if he does get himself in it!? Though the rules give you an order in which to do things, I always assumed you were suffering the drain AS you cast the spell. It's not like you get hit by his a second after casting. I would say that the spirit resists the drain of the spell with his full force, the force at which he cast the spell.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Cmon, you can't just pull quotes and ignore the numerous other quotes which don't support what you are saying.

Yes...actually, you can - if the quote you're ignoring comes from the base book, and the quote you're using is a clarification from the errata and FAQ - that's kind of the point of releasing errata and FAQs.

1) Does Counterspelling for Spell Defense apply to spells that do not have a Resistance test? The RAW seems to clearly indicate this is not the case (see p.198 for an example of the difference between passive, success test based spells and active, opposed test spells).

I didn't even try to answer that one before. I've allowed spell defense to be placed on an inanimate object before, even though they don't get a resistance test normally...why wouldn't a mage be able to protect the vehicle he's in, for example?

2) Does Counterspelling for Spell Defense apply to Elemental Indirect Combat Spells? Again the RAW seems to indicate this is not the case, as the only Resistance test is the damage resistance, and that appears to say you can only add half Impact Armor to your Body. Yes, I appreciate Frank's point about it being repeated for emphasis, but it seems a bit ridiculous to me that they felt the need only to emphasize the half Impact Armor part and not the Counterspelling part (it seems odd that they felt the need to repeat it at all, given only a couple of paragraphs had passed).

So my position is that the RAW doesn't support the use of Counterspelling against non-resistance spells such as Mana Static, or against Elemental Indirect Combat spells such as Fireball.

As for this - I'll stand by the answer that if the proper use of spell defense is to add the counterspelling dice to the resistance attribute, and there is no resistance attribute, then you'd still roll counterspelling for the same reason that x+y doesn't stop being x+y just because y=0.

After all, if you take the text as completely sacred:

Elemental Effects: Many Indirect Combat spells utilize damaging elemental energies such as Fire damage, Electrical damage, etc (see Special Types of Damage, p. 154). These spells are resisted by only half the Impact armor rating (round up), as noted.

you end up with the absurd case that you don't use body to resist them either, ONLY half-impact armor.



Overall, I don't think there is a complete, official, ruling for either of those questions, though - so it'll all come down to your playstyle. Is it something worth asking for? Possibly...I haven't had any arguments over GM interpretation of this regardless of which side of the GM screen I'm on, so I'm not particularly worried about it at the moment.

[Jaid]

I read the spell, I don't see this anywhere within the spell description. Theres also nothing in the errata that says as much.

Also, what happens if instead of a physical barrier spell, they use an elemental wall spell (of a solid element, such as ice, metal, or earth)? What if they cast it as a 1 meter thick wall, 1 meter long, and 1 meter high, encompassing the persons legs? Can they even try to move without destroying the wall? What if they cast it so that its 1 meter thick, 2 long, and 2 high, encompassing the persons head? They don't get a resistance test, they take damage, and they can't do anything to stop it. Even another mage couldn't stop the spell whatsoever.

hmmm... must be getting my systems crossed...

very well then, at this point the barrier has been 'penetrated' i would say, and therefore collapses. (bearing in mind you cannot create the barrier inside the person unless you can *see* inside the person).

[Tarantula]

Yes...actually, you can - if the quote you're ignoring comes from the base book, and the quote you're using is a clarification from the errata and FAQ - that's kind of the point of releasing errata and FAQs.

Your quotes do not come from any errata. Just the FAQ.

so there has to be an actual, targetted character/creature even to cast the spell.

Wrong. In the case of area spells, the target is the center of the area or point of space.
SR4, 173, "Area 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."

I didn't even try to answer that one before. I've allowed spell defense to be placed on an inanimate object before, even though they don't get a resistance test normally...why wouldn't a mage be able to protect the vehicle he's in, for example?

Well, unless he declared it with counterspelling, or had a delayed action to do so, he can't, otherwise, I'd let him, I'm of the opinion that counterspelling SHOULD be able to be applied to any incoming spell, as I believe was the intention. My discussion is about what the rules actually say, versus what they intended.

As for this - I'll stand by the answer that if the proper use of spell defense is to add the counterspelling dice to the resistance attribute, and there is no resistance attribute, then you'd still roll counterspelling for the same reason that x+y doesn't stop being x+y just because y=0.

I definately agree with you here.

After all, if you take the text as completely sacred:

you end up with the absurd case that you don't use body to resist them either, ONLY half-impact armor.

You know, they just needed a (as noted above) and it would've been fine.

Overall, I don't think there is a complete, official, ruling for either of those questions, though - so it'll all come down to your playstyle. Is it something worth asking for? Possibly...I haven't had any arguments over GM interpretation of this regardless of which side of the GM screen I'm on, so I'm not particularly worried about it at the moment.

I think that the book should get errataed to clarify a definative answer to these questions.

hmmm... must be getting my systems crossed...

very well then, at this point the barrier has been 'penetrated' i would say, and therefore collapses. (bearing in mind you cannot create the barrier inside the person unless you can *see* inside the person).

The problem with this, is that the barrier isn't being penetrated, its a question of what happens when its being cast. The caster doesn't need to see inside the person, as its an area spell, and the target of the spell is the center of the area that its affecting. So, the question is does the barrier form through the person? Cut through them? Or around them? Or does it push them one way or another?

[FrankTrollman]

I'm going to go through this very simply, because I think a lot of this conversation is being bogged down by misunderstandings.

• Counterspelling only ever adds in to resistance rolls. Unresisted spells like Mana Static or Physical Barrier are not affected by Counterspelling no matter where they are placed.
• Barrier Spells don't form if you try to stick them "through" physical objects. You can dome around someone, but you can't pillary them.

-Frank

[Fortune]

Frank: If that is the case, how is it possible to provide Counterspelling (spell defense) to objects and items, which do not actually get a Resistance test? I am sure that I have read some references to the affect that this is possible in SR4.

[FrankTrollman]

Frank: If that is the case, how is it possible to provide Counterspelling (spell defense) to objects and items, which do not actually get a Resistance test? I am sure that I have read some references to the affect that this is possible in SR4.

The Object Resistance Threshold is considered the equivalent of a Resistance Test for the purposes of Counterspelling. And yes, I wish the answer was more elegant than that as well.

-Frank

[Synner]

The Object Resistance Threshold is considered the equivalent of a Resistance Test for the purposes of Counterspelling. And yes, I wish the answer was more elegant than that as well.

The next batch of SR4 errata should address this. It will effectively clarify that when there is no relevant Att to add to the Counterspelling skill (such as in the case of inanimate objects), then Counterspelling is still rolled and hits are deducted from the Spellcaster's successes before these are compared with Object Resistance. The same errata should also address how mana barriers affect spells that do not require Resistance Tests.

[Fortune]

That's cool. Thanks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tarantula]

I'm going to go through this very simply, because I think a lot of this conversation is being bogged down by misunderstandings.

• Counterspelling only ever adds in to resistance rolls. Unresisted spells like Mana Static or Physical Barrier are not affected by Counterspelling no matter where they are placed.
• Barrier Spells don't form if you try to stick them "through" physical objects. You can dome around someone, but you can't pillary them.

-Frank

Great answers Frank. I do hope they address the object resistance thing in future errata. Last question, how thick is a physical barrier. What happens if you run into one in a wall shape lengthwise with a car?

[Dashifen]

The next batch of SR4 errata should address this. It will effectively clarify that when there is no relevant Att to add to the Counterspelling skill (such as in the case of inanimate objects), then Counterspelling is still rolled and hits are deducted from the Spellcaster's successes before these are compared with Object Resistance. The same errata should also address how mana barriers affect spells that do not require Resistance Tests.

And there was much rejoicing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)