Broken Rules., Or where RAW just fails. Options

[TommyTwoToes]

Hence, Indirect Spells are handled
as ranged attacks and require a physically solid target or astrally active
target to hit.

How the hell do you use an indirect spell on an an astrally active target that isn't physically solid?

[Yerameyahu]

It's magic.

[Stahlseele]

Wait, i thought only mana spells were able to affect astral targets?

[Yerameyahu]

Indirect Combat spells generate a spell construct at the point of origin (the caster) which travels down the mystic link to the chosen target (see Choose a Target, p. 183), whereupon it discharges and the effect defined in the spell description manifests. The spell traverses the distance between the caster and the target near instantly, but travels over the physical or astral plane to do so only to take effect when it “hits”.

*shrug* Yes, it would flatly contradict the 'Physical spells can't target astral forms' rule. Are you surprised that the rules are messy? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Smokeskin]

An example is quite different from the actual rules.

Examples have been incorrect in the past.
Examples are meant to provide an illustration of how the rules work, not provide those rules.
Examples show how the rule was intended to work, not how the rule actually does work (or in this case, doesn't).

I didn't just quote the example, I also quoted the rules, and they say the exact same thing - that it is resolved like ranged combat etc.

You're really stretching on this one. Where are you reading that OR is involved in Indirect Combat spells?

[Smokeskin]

How the hell do you use an indirect spell on an an astrally active target that isn't physically solid?

Sounds like RAW is that you can cast Fireballs at astral targets - you'll get a Fireball centered on the target, but it obviously won't affect the target since it is on the astral. Airburst Fireballs by sending a spirit to hover over your enemies' cover? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

A spell cast on a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted, as the
object has no life force and thus no connection to mana with which to
oppose the casting of the spell (note that only Physical spells will affect
non-living objects; mana spells have no effect). Highly processed and
artificial items are more difficult to affect than natural, organic objects.
Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold
based on the type of object affected (see the Object Resistance Table).
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or
just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage
(Barriers, p. 166).

Spells are not resisted by non-living objects. Instead, they have a Threshold equal to Object Resistance. Exception: Indirect Combat spells allow for a damage resistance test.
Indirect Combat spells are treated as a ranged attack. Explanation: They allow a Defense test, followed by a Damage Resistance test.

"Some spells" and "may be" are the only listed exceptions to Object Resistance - This allows that [Undefined] spells have the possibility to be exempt from Object Resistance.
While such exceptions are implied in the case of Indirect Combat and most Physical Manipulation spells, no exception is actually made.

Indirect Combat spells are treated as a ranged attack, and thus function as an Opposed test.
Opposed tests are not listed as being exclusive from Threshold tests.
Indirect Combat spells are not listed as an exception to Object Resistance.
Indirect Combat spells thus are both an Opposed test and a Threshold test.

Thus, we now know that Opposed and Threshold tests are compatible, and there is at least one instance (Rules as Written) where both are used to determine the result. However, no rules for how they actually interact with each other are provided, and thus we have a Broken Rule - the subject of this thread.



I should also mention that with Object Resistance, some spells (such as Levitate) have multiple, usually different, Thresholds - again with no explanation on how tests made against multiple thresholds function.


In these instances, it is generally very easy to tell how the rules where intended to function - so much so that most people don't even notice how they actually do function. Regardless, that does not make the intent RAW.

[X-Kalibur]

I don't feel an example is needed. In reality an opposed test is a threshold + opposed test when you think about it. Your threshold is 1 + opposed hits. You must score at least that many hits to succeed. In this case the test would be OR + opposed hits. How is this really any different?

[Smokeskin]

A spell cast on a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted, as the
object has no life force and thus no connection to mana with which to
oppose the casting of the spell. [...]
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or
just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage.

The "note that" refers to the part about not getting a resistance test, which Indirect Combat spells do, and it is there to clear up any confusion in case people mistakenly thinks that the spell targets an object - it doesn't.

Indirect Combat spells produce an effect like flame - the flame can then damage humans or objects alike. That's why they're called Indirect. The real problem is you misunderstood how Indirect Combat spells work. How do you explain a Fireball hitting a drone out of LOS of the caster if you think the spells are cast directly on what is damaged by the spell?

Even if you're still in doubt, on page 204, it is clearly described how they work. They don't get OR - the spell categories preface mentions when OR applies, and for Indirect it isn't there.

[Neurosis]

Tl;dr a drone is not, for rules purposes, an object. An object is inanimate and defenseless.

[sabs]

Tl;dr a drone is not, for rules purposes, an object. An object is inanimate and defenseless.

Except that Drones and vehicles are both on the "Object Resistance Table"
Drones have an ORR of 5 and vehicles of 6+

[Dumori]

Oh rules so many contradictions so little time.

[Darkeus]

For the firing a bow/crossbow question, we simply have to go back to previous edition common sense.

Firing a bow or a crossbow in previous editions was a SS action.. Meaning, that a bow or crossbow shoots a single shot. Ready weapon is a simple action.


A bow fires like this: Ready Action -> Shoot bow -> reload (Ready weapon) -> Shoot Bow

A crossbow follows the same pattern.

This is simple and you are really thinking about it too much. Just because something is not said does not mean it can not be gleaned from teh rules.

[Darkeus]

Double post

[Muspellsheimr]

For the firing a bow/crossbow question, we simply have to go back to previous edition common sense.

NOT THE POINT.

The rule, as written, does not function.

"Common Sense", "Reasonable Interpretation", etc. are all irrelevant.


The entire purpose of this thread is to identify rules that do not work as written, such as firing a bow, spirit Materialization/Possession, or Indirect Combat spells targeted against non-living objects.

[Neurosis]

Except that Drones and vehicles are both on the "Object Resistance Table"
Drones have an ORR of 5 and vehicles of 6+

Oh.

[Smokeskin]

NOT THE POINT.

The rule, as written, does not function.

"Common Sense", "Reasonable Interpretation", etc. are all irrelevant.


The entire purpose of this thread is to identify rules that do not work as written, such as firing a bow, spirit Materialization/Possession, or Indirect Combat spells targeted against non-living objects.

Your problem is often you don't read the rules as written - you twist the meaning of different passages in different directions to engineer contradictions.

Indirect Combat spells have very clear explanations of what they do and how they work. They create a physical effect, which then may or may not hit something - I can see that you just skipped my question on how you explain a Fireball hitting a target out of LOS, which would obviously be impossible under your personal non-RAW interpretation of how Indirect Combat spells work.

Materialization clearly states that it allows astral critters to project into the material world. That's RAW. Sure, physical powers can't generally be used on the astral, but in this case it is very clearly spelled out what the power does and how it works - obviously it is an exception.

I'm trying to imagine a rule book written like it would have to be to satisfy you - ever rule would have to say "except where specifically noted otherwise", and all exceptions would have to carry a note "this is an exception to the general rule". Really, that isn't necessary. If it says that physical powers can't be used from astral, and then a physical power then describes how it works from the astral, it is written that this power works differently from others. It doesn't have to say "this is an exception" - when you write that, that is as a service to the reader in cases where the writer thought it could otherwise lead to misunderstandings.

[Jaid]

Your problem is often you don't read the rules as written - you twist the meaning of different passages in different directions to engineer contradictions.

Indirect Combat spells have very clear explanations of what they do and how they work. They create a physical effect, which then may or may not hit something - I can see that you just skipped my question on how you explain a Fireball hitting a target out of LOS, which would obviously be impossible under your personal non-RAW interpretation of how Indirect Combat spells work.

Materialization clearly states that it allows astral critters to project into the material world. That's RAW. Sure, physical powers can't generally be used on the astral, but in this case it is very clearly spelled out what the power does and how it works - obviously it is an exception.

I'm trying to imagine a rule book written like it would have to be to satisfy you - ever rule would have to say "except where specifically noted otherwise", and all exceptions would have to carry a note "this is an exception to the general rule". Really, that isn't necessary. If it says that physical powers can't be used from astral, and then a physical power then describes how it works from the astral, it is written that this power works differently from others. It doesn't have to say "this is an exception" - when you write that, that is as a service to the reader in cases where the writer thought it could otherwise lead to misunderstandings.

again, you're missing the entire basis of this thread.

this thread is a collecting place for rules that are badly written. if you need to apply common sense house rules to make the rule work the way it is supposed to work, then it should be immediately obvious that the rule minus the common sense house rule is badly written.

so yes, you can present solutions that describe how to house rule things to work the way they were (probably) intended to work, but in doing so you are merely proving the point that the rule is badly written in the first place. if you wish to prove that a given rule does not belong in this thread, you need to show that the actual rules tell you to do things that are not in need of common sense house rules. if following the rules the way they are written leads to nonsensical results, then we can conclude that the rule belongs here, in this thread set up for rules that don't work right.

[phlapjack77]

again, you're missing the entire basis of this thread.

this thread is a collecting place for rules that are badly written. if you need to apply common sense house rules to make the rule work the way it is supposed to work, then it should be immediately obvious that the rule minus the common sense house rule is badly written.

so yes, you can present solutions that describe how to house rule things to work the way they were (probably) intended to work, but in doing so you are merely proving the point that the rule is badly written in the first place. if you wish to prove that a given rule does not belong in this thread, you need to show that the actual rules tell you to do things that are not in need of common sense house rules. if following the rules the way they are written leads to nonsensical results, then we can conclude that the rule belongs here, in this thread set up for rules that don't work right.

Seems pretty clear that Smokeskin was in fact using the rulebook, and not presenting house rules.

Not saying he's right or wrong, only that he's been able to quote the rulebook just as much as t'others.

I think.

[Muspellsheimr]

Your problem is often you don't read the rules as written - you twist the meaning of different passages in different directions to engineer contradictions.

No. I read the rules. I specifically search out for passages I may have missed that are contrary to my conclusion. And I do not ever 'twist' the meaning.

What I do is present the Rules as Written in their literal meaning, typically with the intent of drawing attention to a poorly written rule in the vain hopes that it will actually be changed via Errata. Such poorly written rules just happen to be the topic of this thread.


And in the literal reading of RAW, as I have stated multiple times now, Indirect Combat spells are in fact subject to Object Resistance.

Yet again, the rules state that spells are subject to OR.
There are no specific exceptions made for any single category, sub-category, or spell.
Allowing a Defense test does not provide an exception, as it is not mutually exclusive from a Threshold test.

The example given in the book clearly illustrates how the rule is in intended to function. It does not illustrate how the rule does function as written.

[StealthSigma]

For the firing a bow/crossbow question, we simply have to go back to previous edition common sense.

I've never played Shadowrun aside from 4th Edition. Your explanation does not work on me.

[Stahlseele]

For the Bow:
Ready Weapon action to knock arrow and pull line, then hold, then free action:"Let go of the string and watch the arrow pierce the heavens!"

[StealthSigma]

For the Bow:
Ready Weapon action to knock arrow and pull line, then hold, then free action:"Let go of the string and watch the arrow pierce the heavens!"

Translate that from troll to human.

[sabs]

He also forgot to aim.

And that wasn't even related to any rules at all in the book (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
This thread isn't about how it works in real life, or how we think it should work, but how the book says (or in the case of bows, doesn't) it should work.

[darthmord]

A large part of the problems with SR4/A RAW is the automatic assumption that people have played earlier editions. Truthfully, look at the number of times we have to use 'common sense' with RAW. In the end, while SR4/A is a quality product, it makes some really inane assumptions.

Re-reading some of the pages quoted has left me scratching my head trying to figure out how to play SR4/A exactly as written. Some of the rules have major holes in them that are only filled if we refer to earlier edition rules.

Note I am NOT intending this as a slam against those responsible for writing SR4/A, just an observation of the result, not the intent.

Makes me wonder just how well a fan-driven re-write of the SR4/A rules would go over... and by rewrite, I mean fans going over the sections and clearing up all ambiguity and previous edition referencing.