How do you 'clean' a vehicle?, RFID chips are a massive pain in the carjacker's ass. Options

[3278]

No, I've never seen anything that indicates you can target anything that is physically behind a barrier, whether 1mm or 1m behind it.

I don't think anything of the sort exists in SR4: that's why we're left with the implication. Again, the choice is:

1. Auras can pass through non-living objects [explicitly stated] and extend beyond the metahuman body [implied in SR4s sealed-armor targeting, explicit in earlier versions].
2. Auras extend beyond the metahuman body [implied in SR4s sealed-armor targeting, explicit in earlier versions], but can't pass through any barrier except clothing [stated nowhere], unless that aura is astrally projecting in which case it can pass through material things just fine [explicitly stated].

And yes, it requires clothing to be special, like a said a couple times. I didn't write the, rules, it's not my fault they're dumb. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I prefer to interpret the rules in such a way as to make them not dumb, is the thing. Your interpretation relies on the absence of a rule ["I've never seen anything that indicates you can target anything that is physically behind a barrier"] and relies on a weird exception [auras can only pass through clothes, nothing else, unless astrally projecting]. Why not, instead, use the interpretation that doesn't require special pleading, isn't contradicted by any existing rules, and is fully supported by previous versions of the game?

[ShadowDragon8685]

3278, I think you're missing a perfectly reasonable explanation here.


Auras expand to incorporate worn objects, because the simple act of wearing something makes it so metaphysically yours (until you take it off, at least) that it shows up as part of your aura. Hence, someone wearing full military heavy armor is a valid targeting aura, but someone inside a rigger cocoon is not.

[Yerameyahu]

That's the traditional idea that I've heard over the years; it's a particular version of 'clothes are special'. It doesn't necessarily make sense, unless clothing 'knows' that it's clothing. But, it explains the facts we're given. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Your version, 3278, requires the utterly problematic and totally illogical idea that auras 'protrude' through barriers. I prefer to interpret the rules in such a way as to make them not unplayable, is the thing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) If auras can peek through solid objects (which you claim is explicitly stated?), then we need precise rules for how far they go, are wards included, are they harder to see (we have none of these rules); as well as reconsidering all the implications of cover suddenly not really existing in many cases. A convenient and stupid 'clothing exception' is just easier. I'd rather have one small wart than a huge issue, however 'elegant in theory'.

Now, I don't recall in previous editions that you could magic someone behind a wall. If this was the case, I'm glad you can't any longer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The fact that you have no evidence except the fact that armor doesn't stop targeting is strong support for my theory. If something as game-changing as spelling-through-barriers were true, we'd know about it.

[3278]

Auras expand to incorporate worn objects, because the simple act of wearing something makes it so metaphysically yours (until you take it off, at least) that it shows up as part of your aura.

I think that's pretty reasonable, and works nicely as an explanation for other effects in the game, too, like Invisibility. It's not the interpretation I'd use - refugee from earlier versions, sorry! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) - but I think that's reasonable, absolutely.

Your version, 3278, requires the utterly problematic and totally illogical idea that auras 'protrude' through barriers.

Maybe you could explain what's illogical about the idea. Don't purely astral things like auras go through material things all the time?

The fact that you have no evidence...

And I fear neither of us shall: to my knowledge - and I think we might have covered this - the whole issue just isn't discussed at all in this version, which is too bad, since it leaves a pretty clear paradox, without a clear resolution. My resolution works well for me, but I've a lot of practice with it; if yours is working for you, by all means, you should stick with it.

[Yerameyahu]

AFAIK, auras never goes through objects, no. That's why the 'clothing exception' is *the* clothing exception. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

My point is that your lack of evidence is 'worse' than mine, and it implies that the position is wrong. If you were correct, we'd *expect* evidence (or, conclude that the rules are just that badly written, heh).

I still don't understand about earlier versions? It's been a long time, so I'm sure I forgot.

[3278]

AFAIK, auras never goes through objects, no. That's why the 'clothing exception' is *the* clothing exception. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Interesting. So, for you, an astrally-projecting magician's astral form can pass through a wall, but his aura couldn't?

My point is that your lack of evidence is 'worse' than mine...

Yeah, that's almost always what people think. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Usually both sides of the argument say the same thing: "If your way was right, they'd have written something, but they wrote nothing, so my way must be right!" The internet never ceases to amuse.

[3278]

dp

[Yerameyahu]

Interesting. For you, an astral-projecting magician is like a non-projecting physical person? (Don't be snide.) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Those are totally different conditions. Astral forms can pass through walls, auras cannot radiate through them. So, no, when an astral form is standing behind a wall, its aura doesn't protrude.

*shrug* You can dismiss it if you like, but my position is the null case. You're the one claiming something new. My position requires no additional (and suspiciously missing) rules, like the distance of aura extension. Etc., as I said earlier.

[3278]

Those are totally different conditions. Astral forms can pass through walls, auras cannot radiate through them. So, no, when an astral form is standing behind a wall, its aura doesn't protrude.

Interesting. Why do you suppose astral forms and auras are different in this way?

You're the one claiming something new.

Well, really old, actually. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) To me, this is the default assumption, and has been for a really long time, so pardon me if this is all a bit bemusing.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. As far as this version is concerned, we're both claiming something new: you that clothing [including armor] is uniquely aura-permeable, and me that everything material is aura-permeable. That's okay: it's okay to claim something new, when the rules don't cover a circumstance. I don't think it's bad for us to have done that.

My position requires no additional (and suspicious missing) rules, like the distance of aura extension. Etc., as I said earlier.

Right, your position just requires the additional and suspiciously missing rules explaining how clothing is aura-permeable, but nothing else is. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Like I say, it's pretty normal in situations like this for somebody to say, "Mine's the null case, and yours is special pleading!" But the fact is, both of our cases require the same-sized missing hole in the rules, and we're just speculating based on the shape of the hole. If you feel like this is an "argument" that you have to "win," then by all means let's talk about evidence and whatever, but I think you're probably safe to relax: this conversation passed the rules by a long while ago, and neither you nor I will get to wear them against this terrible, terrible cold.

[edit: And please, don't feel like I'm "dismiss[ing]" your interpretation! I don't happen to share it, because I don't think it's internally consistent and because I have a version history. You don't share my interpretation, because you're not interested in rethinking the entirety of how you manage "standing near walls" in your game, and I don't think that's unreasonable, either. I don't want you to feel like I'm dismissing your position, it just doesn't work for me, for my personal standards, with my personal history. That doesn't mean I don't consider it, or value it, or you. We hold a different position, but that doesn't mean I believe your position is deficient.]

[Yerameyahu]

I don't understand the question. They're different because they're in no way the same. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) If my hand is white, you can't see that color through a sheet of (thick) aluminum foil. If I push my hand through, you can instantly see the color. This seems like an accurate metaphor for the astral form/aura distinction (alternatively, replace 'white' with 'softly glowing'). The aura never pierces the barrier, it's merely a feature of the astral form.

I keep asking about your previous editions assertion. Are you just ignoring that? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Right, mine requires one simple exception. Yours requires several spelled-out mechanical rules. Hehe. Sadly, I'm fully prepared to entertain the idea that the writers simply left those rules out by accident. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) If I thought that auras peeking through walls was desirable, your position does indeed make sense.

[3278]

The aura never pierces the barrier, it's merely a feature of the astral form.

That's definitely an interesting way of thinking about it, thank you.

I keep asking about your previous editions assertion. Are you just ignoring that? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm sorry, I didn't see any questions. What was it you wanted to know?

I'm not sure what kind of conversations you've had in the past, but I'm not the kind of person who's going to ignore a question because the answer is awkward to me. I get high on finding out I'm wrong: it's how I get right. I know sometimes people play rhetorical games, ignoring questions and quibbling points of logic to score points, but that's not really for me, just so you know: I'm perfectly satisfied with how tiny my penis is.

Right, mine requires one simple exception. Yours requires several spelled-out mechanical rules.

That doesn't bother me. Not only don't I think it requires a whole lot of rules, but I don't really care if it does require some more: I find that a superior solution to something even you say, "doesn't necessarily make sense." That's a difference in emphasis: I get the impression that the rules [and rules-related issues like game balance] matter a little more to you than they do to me, which helps to explain our difference in preference as regards this particular issue, as well.

[Yerameyahu]

The point wasn't that 'many rules' is bad, but that the absence of more (and more mechanically-involved) rules is stronger evidence against your position than the absence of one simple (if silly) rule is against mine; that's all.

You mentioned repeatedly that previous editions worked the way your argument suggests. I, not remembering anything about previous editions except things in Rigger 3, asked if you could be more specific. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Are you actually saying that auras in previous editions extended out from the body and through nearby objects? Etc.

[3278]

The point wasn't that 'many rules' is bad, but that the absence of more (and more mechanically-involved) rules is stronger evidence against your position than the absence of one simple (if silly) rule is against mine; that's all.

Except that no fewer rules changes are actually required by your interpretation: you've made a list of the ones involved with mine, but haven't made a similar list for yours, is all. For mine, you brought up the need for, "precise rules for how far they go," as well as visibility and cover,* but the same types of rules would be required for clothing being uniquely transparent to auras, like what's required for you to be "wearing" something [and not just having it around you], how many layers of clothing would be included, whether auras can be seen through clothing on the astral plane, whether the aura shining through clothing changes astral visibility, etc.

Like I said before, there's a hole in the rules. The hole is the same size, whatever shape we put it in. I'm sorry, and I know this hurts, but I don't think one of us is going to get some kind of blessing from the rules that'll make it clear which of us is packing the most metaphorical heat. I mean, you know, in terms of being right.

Are you actually saying that auras in previous editions extended out from the body and through nearby objects? Etc.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, I thought I'd been clear about that: yes, in previous editions, the aura extends out from the body and through nearby objects.

Not in SR1, mind you: in SR1, inanimate objects explicitly "block the passage of magical energy and emotions, two primary elements of the astral form or aura." [SR1 89] [Note that in SR1, the "astral form" and "aura" were metaphysically the same thing.] But in SR2, "a living aura radiates a short distance from the being," and oh yeah, sorry we didn't really think through things like 'sealed combat armor' and LOS and touch attacks; here's a page of background on how magic works. [SR2 149] The saving grace is intended to be that you can't attack an aura you can only see part of, so a little sticking around a corner wasn't supposed to be enough, but no explicit rules were given for how far or anything like that: that's all on the GM.

My memory gets hazy after that. I'm not sure SR3 mentioned the issue at all, but all the drugs and cheeses of the last 20 years can't be good for my brain, and you've got to be pretty proud of me for remembering where to go in SR1 and SR2 at 2am on a Saturday morning. If it got brought up in SR3, it'd be a little further afield, in Awakenings or Magic in the Shadows, but I've got to be awake and driving a car with no roof or doors through a snow storm in 4 hours, so it's to bed with me!

*And whether wards would be treated like brick walls, but I think the answer to that one's pretty clearly a no, but I often think things are clear when they're really not. ;)

[Yerameyahu]

I still disagree ('clothing is excepted, no munchkinry' seems to totally cover it), but I can see you'll only be snide about it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) That's one of the classical appeals, right?

So, it sounds like you have zero previous edition evidence that involves auras going *through* anything, nor targeting spells via that. In fact, the rules mentioned seem to be explicitly the opposite of those two points (SR1 and SR2, respectively). I'm glad my memory isn't as bad as I was prepared to believe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Modular Man]

Is the HERF a pistol? I always assumed it was a large-ish longarm.

It would suck to be that poor mage, because you can't extract magic senses via simsense; he'd have to mark every bugger in 3D manually, and there could be scads.

Funny things: I looked the HERF gun up in my version of "Arsenal", which happens to be the german one. There it is named a pistol. There is no similar statement in the english version. Go figure (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Jep, said mage would have to do it all by himself, it would be quite some handiwork. Would work with a pre-rendered 3D map and an Edit program, though, I think. I'd picture it as an extended computer + Edit test.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

Or the mage gets a bound F6 task spirit with "Hardware" and "Automotive Mechanic" and commands it to remove all RFID-tags from the vehicle. Then the spirit uses his search power to find the tags and Automotive Mechanic + Hardware to remove them.

[CanRay]

Soap and water?

[3278]

So, it sounds like you have zero previous edition evidence that involves auras going *through* anything, nor targeting spells via that. In fact, the rules mentioned seem to be explicitly the opposite of those two points (SR1 and SR2, respectively).

Um. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif) Did you read the page I referenced in SR2? I would recommend you do that before coming to any conclusions: what I quoted is by no means the entirety of the rules listed there! If you don't have a copy, please, let me know, and I'll quote the whole paragraph.

[Yerameyahu]

I can dig them up; I didn't because I assumed you quoted the good parts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) So, you're still saying that SR1 and/or SR2 explicitly have rules for auras *piercing* objects and for targeting spells through objects based on that?

[3278]

Well, I'll tell you what: you go check out page 149 of SR2 for what it says, and check out my posts for what I said, and if the two don't match, boy, you make sure to rush back here and let us all know.

[Mordinvan]

Just a related question... lets say I make a spell... a variant of powerbolt "destroy fingernails", a spell which evaporates the fingernails of a target. Are you seriously going to tell me that someone wearing gloves, or who has their hands in their pockets is immune to the spell because I can't see his fingernails? I'm reasonably certain making such a spell would work, and wearing gloves isn't going to save you. As such, why would a spell expressly designed to burn out RFID's which are built into a car, just as your fingernails are built into your hands be any different?

[snowRaven]

Just a related question... lets say I make a spell... a variant of powerbolt "destroy fingernails", a spell which evaporates the fingernails of a target. Are you seriously going to tell me that someone wearing gloves, or who has their hands in their pockets is immune to the spell because I can't see his fingernails? I'm reasonably certain making such a spell would work, and wearing gloves isn't going to save you. As such, why would a spell expressly designed to burn out RFID's which are built into a car, just as your fingernails are built into your hands be any different?

By RAW, if it only affects fingernails, you have to see the fingernails you want to affect.

You could provably design a spell that doesn't target the fingernails specifically, instead targetting the person and evaporating their fingernails. That would work, but you wouldn't get the drain reduction from 'very resistricted target' -- and I have no clue if it should be considered a combat spell, health spell or manipulation spell.

Something similar could work with RFIDs, but how do you differentiate when an RFID is part of the car and when it's not? There are many ways to attach or incorporate the RFIDs into the structure and interior space of the car, and if you want to get them all you most likely will have to target some individually anyway.

[3278]

As such, why would a spell expressly designed to burn out RFID's which are built into a car, just as your fingernails are built into your hands be any different?

Well, for my money, it'd be because the hands belong to a living thing and the RFIDs don't, but this would also depend on Direct or Indirect, Mana or Physical. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and I'm not actually certain my answer makes sense. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, that spell is illegal from the get-go, Mordinvan. We haven't been talking about a spell that targets a car and produces the effect "destroy car's RFIDs"; it's a spell that *targets* RFIDs we've been discussing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

3278, I didn't say you didn't match the book. I said what you presented said nothing about auras piercing objects, nor allowing targeting through them. Alas, upon checking, I only kept the 'source' books from SR3 (not the rule books). The more complete quotes you offered would be handy after all.