That's what i thought too, but apparently they somehow got themselves back on the Bubba Love Troll dating list again.

You mean whether or not GM follows what is apparently canon. The were certainly acceptable up until the report of violent penetration showed up.

EDIT: Which i guess follows the pattern. They were pretty good in SR3, maybe even a bit over the top with the use of Geas....until the FAQ cornholed them.

So you'll have a mage that lost a point of Magic just like he had implanted some Orthoskin and Muscle Toner but without the benefits of the 'ware till he's bought even more Magic and diverted from that from being a mage too...oh, and he can't Project.

EDIT: That's not to say he won't be better off than a mundane in a longterm, high karma campaign. But that's a different issue that goes more to the unlimited nature of awakened PCs. I suppose in a longterm, high karma campaign he could even arguable level off with Adepts (such is the utility of spells).

What has changed in 4th that humps them is maximum spell Force = Magic x 2, and how the old Force 1, for lack of a better word, loopholes closed up.

P.S. In 3rd edition the MW Adept's saving grace was geasing the Magic Power. So they were right in there as starting characters. It was the FAQ's take on Initiation for them where they got tapped by Bubba.

The main forum has numerous whole threads on the subject on Force 1 SR3 spells, but a short list to get started:

Increased Reflexes (1, 2, or 3), Invisibility, and Improved Invisibility were good starts for the Force 1 list (in canon of course). That's all history now.

Heal/Treat was normally fine at midling Force levels because as written extra successes could at least be used to lower time, which as written is no longer the case. Also damage tracks have gotten longer, so a given box is often worth a bit more now depending on the target's Attribute. EDIT: SR3 Force 1 Heal/Treat wasn't that great though, it's use would be more for the occational patch job on a Light wound (receiving just 1 box of damage being more likely in SR3) or the oh-crap-emergency stabilizer.

A lot of the Detect spells in SR3 were still quite useful at Force 1, the Inventory spell was often more useful cast at lower Force than higher because of the lower range. Inventory hasn't shown up yet in SR4, but to give some examples of what is there right now many Detect [Obect] spells are COMPLETELY worthless (simply cannot succeed) until you use at least Force 4 or 5, and with low Force the passive Detect spells (Clairvoyance, et. al.) are like looking through a shit splattered windshield.

So are the SR4 version of Force 1 or 2 spells entirely without use? Well some are. But mostly it is that they overall (so far) either had low/limited utility in SR3 and maintain that now, or received somewhere between a modest reduction and a full out kick to the happy sac during the move to SR4.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, i applaud those spell changes. I'd be disappointed if Street Magic reversed the trend. I'm also not suggesting that the SR3 MW Adept was a major fire and lightning combat mage. Well, unless they cheezed it with a Geas on 6 points of the Magic Power. Then they could at least start out as one. Nor would i expect Mystic Adepts to be able to hang with the truely red hot avatars of spell slinging destruction, the reduced Spellcasting pool hurts.

Now you see the plan.

Although, with the very recent information that Mystic Adepts actually don't use their full Magic rating to determine spell Force caps, the character build theory is now busted.

Gonna just go rebuild him into a full normal mage. Jeez, way to be unclear on yet another thing, FanPro. By d6s, you mean dice, right?

The plan is they are humped unless you run your campaign out to hundreds of karma, at which point they get company in the humped department?

If so then i feel confident in my assertion that the plan sucks.

*shrug* That's how casters are. Anything off the top end really hurts. Moreso than in SR3 too, where Magic was a lot cheaper and didn't have as much weight in the mechanics.

If they work that way, ya. Which as covered would be bad, but quite possible.

Yes, Counterspelling is a nice thing to have. I believe you'd need to allocate at least 1 Magic point to magician use though to get it:

So for the most part the Mystic Adept Quality could be replaced by a 5BP Quality that allowed Adepts to then buy a 1 PP Adept power that in turn allowed them to buy and use Counterspelling for Spell Defense (and 1+Counterspelling dice for dispelling)? :^)

No. Counterspelling is a magic-based skill.

Yes. You can't have more active foci than your magic attribute. And there is currently no focus-related magic skill related to the bonding of foci, so for now at least there are no caps on that.

Of course, since Rob's statement directly contradicts the printed word that was changed in SR4, I'm going to publically suspect that he was reflexively giving the SR3 answer without thinking about it. People still do ask him SR3 questions now and again, so that's going to be my assumption unless and until someone gives me a better one.

Still using the RAW on that one,
-Frank

Well you used Foci for Skills, and most Foci are tied to "magicians" in the text sooooo i wouldn't count on it being total Magic outside of Weapon Foci. Maybe though.

Sadly the RAW is vague enough that it allows for interpretation that way. Though i remember at least one playtester thinking that the larger Force was correct, it's in the earlier part of the Magic sticky thread. I noticed the wording change and brought it up myself within a couple of days of having the PDF.

Good point about the SR3 angle. It's tough to keep two similar but different systems 100% clear in your head. There could even have been a miscommunication about which version the question was about (hard to judge that without the email text though).

You can bond as many as your magic attribute but only have as many active as your logic (P191, start of second paragraph under Activation). Logic is still capped at the modified limit of 9 (or 10 with exceptional attribute).

according to blakkie's quote though, you just need to be a full magician or mystic adept to take magic skills...

perhaps i'm missing something though... what was that ruling again?

i mean, it doesn't really specifically say that you need 1 point of magic devoted towards being a spellcaster or anything...

If the Mystic Adept doesn't allocate at least one point towards it they effectively have no Attribute to base it upon, just as is the case for the Magician with Magic 0.

If that is read to include determining Maximum Force as "use with Magic-based skills", then it would seem nearly certain to apply mana-based Magic points only to that sentence on page 113.