Wreck spells, ... would you allow ... Options

[ornot]

A cubic meter would destroy most structural columns for large buildings. So after the force 3 gang mage casts the spell the 3rd time the 40 story office building collapses. Not bad for 9 seconds of work.

Not a cubic metre. A square meter 10 cm deep. Basically a tenth of a cubic metre. Force 3 gang mage must cast for a minute and half, and withstand quite a lot of drain tests, by which time building security are going to be perforating him with lead (I assume response times within the building are going to be pretty quick). The same gang stand about as much chance of leveling the building by scrounging up some explosives and planting them over that minute and a half.

[Stahlseele]

by the way:
what happened to the whole "cannot target a single part of something bigger with spells"?
else it would be enough to do a simple wreck trigger to salvage perfectly good guns that nobody can shoot from, as long as there's no smartlink or other electronical interface there . .

Wreck Gun: whole gun
Wreck Car: whole car
Wreck Wall: nope, no dice, not the whole building, only part of the bigger picture ?
Wreck Door: technically it is not part of the building, only attached to the building via hinges . .

[ornot]

You forgot about line of sight. You'd need to see the trigger, and presumably their trigger finger is covering it.

You'd suffer a small target modifier, a cover modifier and probably whatever movement modifier the guard/ganger is currently enjoying. And you'd still need to beat the OR, and still inflict sufficient damage to overcome the weapon's barrier and armour rating.

In fact LoS affects all those demolish electronics and demolish weapons spells too.

Sure you can have wreck gun or wreck trigger, but it's not going to any more useful to you than stun bolt, probably less so.

Basically, though, magic is very bad for you to fight if you don't have counterspelling, so any opposition worthy of the name will have some.

[kzt]

Not a cubic metre. A square meter 10 cm deep. Basically a tenth of a cubic metre. Force 3 gang mage must cast for a minute and half, and withstand quite a lot of drain tests, by which time building security are going to be perforating him with lead (I assume response times within the building are going to be pretty quick). The same gang stand about as much chance of leveling the building by scrounging up some explosives and planting them over that minute and a half.

Acrobat seems to have died on me, so I can't check it, but powerbolt doesn't have a huge drain. He's unskilled, not stupid, so he's got enough drain dice to handle it for a while. And he's sitting in a car a mile and a half away with a pair of binos. The street is about to be full of glass and concrete and it's safer here.

They are going to detect the attack when the structural members start to yield, by which point it's almost over. And when they rush out and shoot up anyone suspicious it isn't going to help.

[kzt]

by the way:
what happened to the whole "cannot target a single part of something bigger with spells"?
else it would be enough to do a simple wreck trigger to salvage perfectly good guns that nobody can shoot from, as long as there's no smartlink or other electronical interface there . .

Wreck Gun: whole gun
Wreck Car: whole car
Wreck Wall: nope, no dice, not the whole building, only part of the bigger picture ?
Wreck Door: technically it is not part of the building, only attached to the building via hinges . .

Well, then you could just cast the spell a few times until the entire building falls in a heap, as you would be attacking the entire building with powerbolt.

I think the entire idea is bad for the reason I gave, but the above would not help.

[BookWyrm]

Effect two.
The spell weakens the binding forces of the wall creating microfractures within its tructure, when the structure rating reaches zero it simply falls apart. An explosion would be a blast elemental indirect spell (being described as similar to the shockwave of an explosion a blast spell MIGHT be considered as explosive for porpouse of attacking barriers, doubling the damage against barriers).
At least it's my opinion.

Yeah, I can see that with this type of spell.

[Dunsany]

First of all, really? Are we really worried about mages that can destroy "guns" or "triggers of guns" that they have line of sight to? I'm simply failing to see why this is an issue at all.

Secondly, we could begin a discussion about structural integrity of buildings, but I'm not sure that a gaming forum is the right place for it. I think the bottom line is that if s character has the correct knowledge to know which supports of a building have to be destroyed in order to bring it down quickly, and has access to the means to do it (explosives or a spell), then they can go ahead and try (if this is the sort of thing you encourage in your game.) I'll note that your opinion on how fast such a structure will fall, and how easily it is done, is vastly different from my own.

[masterofm]

Wreck guns is awsome for the fact that it is a radius spell that destroys all the oppositions guns. When a security team suddenly has no weapons then the only threat you face is the other mage.

[Dunsany]

Wreck guns is awsome for the fact that it is a radius spell that destroys all the oppositions guns. When a security team suddenly has no weapons then the only threat you face is the other mage.

I'm aware of what the spell does. Though what you describe is actually Demolish-Guns (Wreck is a single target spell). I still fail to see why this is a problem. If your opposition only have guns to fight, are all in LoS at the same time, and group together within the range of the spell, then this spell has neutralized them without harming any person directly. Bravo. However, if any of the above are not true *or* they have any magical backup, this spell is less effective (though could still be useful).

With all the ways a shadowrunning team have for neutralizing unprepared opposition, I fail to see why breaking their guns is actually a problem.

[ornot]

Acrobat seems to have died on me, so I can't check it, but powerbolt doesn't have a huge drain. He's unskilled, not stupid, so he's got enough drain dice to handle it for a while. And he's sitting in a car a mile and a half away with a pair of binos. The street is about to be full of glass and concrete and it's safer here.

They are going to detect the attack when the structural members start to yield, by which point it's almost over. And when they rush out and shoot up anyone suspicious it isn't going to help.

Typically the principal support for a given building is not visible from outside, let alone from a mile and a half away.

Of course, with advances in architecture it may be that the super-scrapers and archologies in SR have diffuse support structures. That's entirely a GM call.

Considering the risks of earthquakes and other phenomena across the world (IIRC, in SR canon there have been unnatural quakes in places normally safe from such things) and the widespread availability of computing power, it would be negligent not to install detectors on the supporting columns, and since the spell can only destroy the structure by degrees, the damage would be detected long before ganger mage was done. Also, it would take a highly variable number of castings to damage reinforced structural material, given the barrier rating table in the BBB, so he could be sitting there for some time.

Re: Demolish guns. A mage can as easily cast stunball or manaball, and take out the guards that way as he could cast demolish guns. This spell is not broken, it's just another way to accomplish a task.

[Blade]

Wreak Wall would be ok with me... Just don't take Wreck : Party.

[Jhaiisiin]

I'd personally allow wreck wall, as a wall is a definable object. It's one part of a building, sure, but once something gets to a certain size, targeting parts becomes the only option. As for wrecking a vehicle door because it's a "wall" of a car, no. It's a door, not a wall. Want to target the quarterpanel then? No. It's not a wall, it's the chassis of the car. The only "wall" that I would say exists in a vehicle is the firewall, and you can't physically see that to target it, so no go.

As for the effect that Wreck (whatever) generates, I've found it open to interpretation. I had a character with Wreck Door (the touch version, so shatter door I guess) and the GM interpreted it that when he placed his hand on the door and cast the spell, it blew the door off the hinges and into lots of pieces. I could see the same with wreck wall, or wreck gun or whatever. That said, having something just fall apart where it is makes perfect sense too.

[Apathy]

If you cast a wreck-wall spell would it effect the entire wall, or just a portion of it? If I cast Wreck Wall at the side of a building, will that whole face of the building come tumbling down, or just a small section?

One could argue that the Great Wall of China is a wall, but I wouldn't expect to bring the whole thing down just by spending a point of edge for a critical success. On the other hand, I could imagine a critical success knocking a hole in the Great Wall.

[Dashifen]

by the way:
what happened to the whole "cannot target a single part of something bigger with spells"?
else it would be enough to do a simple wreck trigger to salvage perfectly good guns that nobody can shoot from, as long as there's no smartlink or other electronical interface there . .

Wreck Gun: whole gun
Wreck Car: whole car
Wreck Wall: nope, no dice, not the whole building, only part of the bigger picture ?
Wreck Door: technically it is not part of the building, only attached to the building via hinges . .

I've always been far more liberal with that concept. If the target of your spell can be defined by a noun, then you can target it. So I allow the targeting of a car's door rather than the car itself and wing it appropriately. I've also allowed things like called shots with indirect combat spells to target a hand or things like that so while it's not technically within the confines of the rules, I'd allow it.

Thanks for the comments, everyone!

[Dunsany]

If you cast a wreck-wall spell would it effect the entire wall, or just a portion of it? If I cast Wreck Wall at the side of a building, will that whole face of the building come tumbling down, or just a small section?

One could argue that the Great Wall of China is a wall, but I wouldn't expect to bring the whole thing down just by spending a point of edge for a critical success. On the other hand, I could imagine a critical success knocking a hole in the Great Wall.

As has been pointed out, these spells attack objects the same way any other effect attacks an object. It destroys the objects "structure" which are much like "damage boxes" on character sheets. Each set of "structure" boxes represent a cubic meter with a width of 10cm. So, while you can destroy large portions of objects made of glass (which have one structure box per that area) with one attack, it is much harder to destroy the same amount of reinforced concrete (having 15 structure boxes per designated area.)

If we consider that the Great Wall of China is made of a "Structural Material" it has 11 boxes of structure for every cubic meter by 10cm area. We'll say that the Object Resistance is only that of "Manufactured Low-Tech Objects and Materials," so that will be a 2. So, if you cast a Force 7 Wreck-Wall spell and score 5 hits, you have just destroyed a cubic meter by 10cm of the Great Wall of China. If you scored more hits you'd be working on your second meter cubed section of the wall. Well on your way to taking down the whole Great Wall...in a couple hundred years.

[JFixer]

I'd be a LOT more concerned about Wreck/Demolish Cyberware/Electronics. Demolish spells no longer require line of sight, which means your Wired Reflexes (beating a threshold of 4...) vaporize. Can you even still move if your Wired Reflexes have been toasted? As for Wreck Cyberware, what's THE most common Cyberware in 2070? Cybereyes. We had the Sam's eyeballs explode in the Aztech run the other weekend. Horrible. Luckily they had mostly unrestricted access to the lab, and they managed to scrounge up a Medicine Hard-Chip in the lab. Replaced his trashed cyber-eyes with a pair of ... experimental... bio eyes. For now he sees auras. Havn't decided what else to do to him. Other than his eyes being dual natured. (Oh the fun!)

Really, Wreck Wall is just allowing you to deal damage to a small area of the wall. You're exciting the bonds that form the wall to cause it to heat up, and then fall apart, likely with sputters of blue mana-energy cooking off as it bleeds out of astral space around the pure, destructive force of the spell. A single magician can't deal enough damage to the wall to cook off the whole wall in one go, and your average External Wall is going to be, oh, 50cm thick? Foot and a half at least on those big buildings, guys.

As for Wreck Drone not being realistic, consider this: There are a /lot/ of vital components in a robot that are made of much softer stuff than wood OR glass, and enough shock will simply cause them to stop working. Next time your computer is booting up, shake it violently and see if anything bad happens...

(Actually, don't. You can wreck your hard-drives and a few other sensitive components that way.)

[ornot]

Where do you get the idea that you don't need line of sight for demolish? It may be area effect, but it only effects stuff you can see in that area effect. If you cast an area spell through a keyhole, it only harms stuff you can actually see inside the room, even if the room is smaller than the total area.

As for a sam's eyes being targeted, I hope you applied appropriate modifiers for range and target size.

While I like your description of wreck wall, I make the visual effects vary from tradition to tradition, so there would be no blanket description.

[Dunsany]

I'd be a LOT more concerned about Wreck/Demolish Cyberware/Electronics. Demolish spells no longer require line of sight, which means your Wired Reflexes (beating a threshold of 4...) vaporize.

Demolish is a Direct Combat Spell that has the range LOS(A). This, in no way, removes the requirement for line of sight to the targets being destroyed by Demolish. Also the book is unclear on how such a spell would effect cyberware that is now part of a living being (or at least I can't find a section that applies). I believe your interpretation is valid, but one that few others would come to. I believe most people would rule that the an attack on cyberware within a living target requires an opposed test against that target. Though given that object resistance wouldn't apply, perhaps your version is better. Also, how much structure did you give to the cyberware? Cyberlimbs, for instance, add one damage box to the person they are attached to. But certainly they do not have the same amount of structure as a piece of glass (one structure). But perhaps they do, given they are much smaller. Also, as ornot noted, there would also be considerable modifiers for using such a spell on a small target such as cyberyes (if they are even visible).

The "called shot" rules claim that they only apply to weapons that fire SS, SA or BF. Though it is noted earlier that you can make called shots within melee combat. The reason I bring this up is that Shatter/Wreck/Demolish are variants of the Powerbolt/ball spell and so follow the same rules (as noted in the text of the spell.) So, if you couldn't use Powerbolt to target the cyberware of a person without targeting them as a whole, then presumably you wouldn't be able to do so with Wreck. However, I'm perfectly happy to accept that the paragraph under "Called Shot" is only to be applied to firearms and is meant to exclude Full Auto fire rather than other methods of attack (such as melee attacks). If this is true then it seems perfectly acceptable to use Demolish-Cyberware to either destroy a workshop full of random cyberware parts, or to break all the cybereyes within the range of the spell that the caster can see. Just as you could use Powerbolt to "called shot" to "temporarily blind an opponent." The degree of damage and is, as usual, left up to the GM (though the amount of damage done with the spell could give you a good idea.)

On the other hand, I believe many people would rule that the fact that a Direct Combat Spell channels damage directly into the "target's inner being" means that you can't make a called shot with the spell and also that you couldn't target 'ware within a living target without targeting the living being. I'd be more inclined to rule this way given that direct combat spells are already powerful enough and that it seems to fit the general nature of magic within the setting (that is, that 'ware paid with essence is a part of the whole.)

[masterofm]

huh... what about demolish foci? Might be quite a crazy spell.

[Jaid]

As has been pointed out, these spells attack objects the same way any other effect attacks an object. It destroys the objects "structure" which are much like "damage boxes" on character sheets. Each set of "structure" boxes represent a cubic meter with a width of 10cm. So, while you can destroy large portions of objects made of glass (which have one structure box per that area) with one attack, it is much harder to destroy the same amount of reinforced concrete (having 15 structure boxes per designated area.)

If we consider that the Great Wall of China is made of a "Structural Material" it has 11 boxes of structure for every cubic meter by 10cm area. We'll say that the Object Resistance is only that of "Manufactured Low-Tech Objects and Materials," so that will be a 2. So, if you cast a Force 7 Wreck-Wall spell and score 5 hits, you have just destroyed a cubic meter by 10cm of the Great Wall of China. If you scored more hits you'd be working on your second meter cubed section of the wall. Well on your way to taking down the whole Great Wall...in a couple hundred years.

a cubic meter is a volume equivalent to that of a cube where all sides are 1 meter long. as such, a cubic meter by 10 cm area (which you are also using wrongly, for the record, since it isn't really a 10 cm area at all) would have to be 10 rectangular prisms, each 1 meter x 1 meter x 10 cm.

if you must phrase it that way, then it is a 1 meter area, 10 cm deep.

anyways, on to the main question: i'd allow it. it's not like this is some horrificly broken spell. heck, you can get a spell that nukes wards really easily, why not a spell that does the same thing with walls? frankly, it's overly specialised for my taste... i certainly wouldn't feel particularly inclined to part with 3 karma for this when i could be picking up something like levitation, heal, physical mask, improved invisibility, shapechange, etc instead for that same karma.

[Kev]

Demolish: Cyberware would only effect cyberware not installed into a metahuman body. As per the BBB, any cyberware paid for with essence, becomes part of the metahuman, and thus not subject to individual targeting by magic. You can't target the wheels of a car with a DC spell, and you can't target a metahuman's head with a DC spell, thus you can't target their eyes, or their cyberarms, etc since it's all considered part of the body, as a whole.

The walls, on the other hand, I would say are a completely valid target if only because A.) Urban Renewal from SR2, and B.) the scale of the structure is so large that the walls are counted as a separate entity from the building, as are the doors. In fact, if you want to be a bitch about it, make the load-bearing walls part of the "building", not a "wall" per se. That way it preserves the difference between the walls and the building as a whole.

[Dunsany]

huh... what about demolish foci? Might be quite a crazy spell.

Well, you can cast a Powerbolt on the physical object, yes? With that said, I'm not sure I'd allow "Foci" as a "specific inanimate object." I can see an argument for putting Foci into a class of inanimate objects all its own, but I'm not of the opinion that they are. A Foci is simply an inanimate object that happens to be magical. A sword that is a weapon focus is a sword and would be destroyed by Demolish-Melee Weapon (or Sword, depending on how specific you want your Wreck spells). Demolish-Jewelry would probably serve as a "screw that mage's wallet" spell to almost the degree you're looking for. Not quite as broad, but it'll take out a great many expensive Foci.

[Dunsany]

a cubic meter is a volume equivalent to that of a cube where all sides are 1 meter long. as such, a cubic meter by 10 cm area (which you are also using wrongly, for the record, since it isn't really a 10 cm area at all) would have to be 10 rectangular prisms, each 1 meter x 1 meter x 10 cm.

if you must phrase it that way, then it is a 1 meter area, 10 cm deep.

Well yes, that's quite embarrassing on my part. My apologies for mixing up my measurements. My only excuse is not paying enough attention and having a rather dumb moment. Thanks for the correction.

[masterofm]

If you can't see it you can't target it. If you can't see the cyber or bioware you can't destroy it. I would think that demolish or wreck armor is more useful.

[MaxMahem]

Demolish is a Direct Combat Spell that has the range LOS(A). This, in no way, removes the requirement for line of sight to the targets being destroyed by Demolish. Also the book is unclear on how such a spell would effect cyberware that is now part of a living being (or at least I can't find a section that applies). I believe your interpretation is valid, but one that few others would come to. I believe most people would rule that the an attack on cyberware within a living target requires an opposed test against that target. Though given that object resistance wouldn't apply, perhaps your version is better. Also, how much structure did you give to the cyberware? Cyberlimbs, for instance, add one damage box to the person they are attached to. But certainly they do not have the same amount of structure as a piece of glass (one structure). But perhaps they do, given they are much smaller. Also, as ornot noted, there would also be considerable modifiers for using such a spell on a small target such as cyberyes (if they are even visible).

The "called shot" rules claim that they only apply to weapons that fire SS, SA or BF. Though it is noted earlier that you can make called shots within melee combat. The reason I bring this up is that Shatter/Wreck/Demolish are variants of the Powerbolt/ball spell and so follow the same rules (as noted in the text of the spell.) So, if you couldn't use Powerbolt to target the cyberware of a person without targeting them as a whole, then presumably you wouldn't be able to do so with Wreck. However, I'm perfectly happy to accept that the paragraph under "Called Shot" is only to be applied to firearms and is meant to exclude Full Auto fire rather than other methods of attack (such as melee attacks). If this is true then it seems perfectly acceptable to use Demolish-Cyberware to either destroy a workshop full of random cyberware parts, or to break all the cybereyes within the range of the spell that the caster can see. Just as you could use Powerbolt to "called shot" to "temporarily blind an opponent." The degree of damage and is, as usual, left up to the GM (though the amount of damage done with the spell could give you a good idea.)

On the other hand, I believe many people would rule that the fact that a Direct Combat Spell channels damage directly into the "target's inner being" means that you can't make a called shot with the spell and also that you couldn't target 'ware within a living target without targeting the living being. I'd be more inclined to rule this way given that direct combat spells are already powerful enough and that it seems to fit the general nature of magic within the setting (that is, that 'ware paid with essence is a part of the whole.)

I partially agree with some of this lie of reasoning. I think "would you allow it to be targeted with powerbolt" is probably a good criteria for weather or not you could legitimately have a wreck spell that target that object. I'm fairly restrictive in what I allow direct combat spells to target, to be a legitimate target it has to be a distinct entity on the game level. Thus metahumans, guns, and vehicles are legitimate targets, while cyberwear and individual vehicle pars (windows, tires, ect...) are not.

I would also point out that half the rational for 'called shots' with firearms (or melee attacks, or possibly even indirect combat spells) is to bypass a targets armor. Something that is totally not a factor for direct combat spells.