And as always, it's up to your GM to decide if new applications of existing technologies/magics are to be labeled as "useful innovation" or "forbidden exploit."

too bad they don't have a burst fire and full auto advantages for spells. You'd think in a modern world where burst fire weapons exist, they'd develop spells with similar capabilities. If I were designing a mundane flamethrower for SR4 I'd make it FA, you can concentrate fire for more damage(narrow burst, spread fire for accuracy,(wide burst), light an entire area on fire(suppressive fire)

But then again for spells I wants lots of new mods, like a cone area of effect, PBAoE, since it would go backwards just for indirect spells I guess.

So yeah come on magic book give us burst fire spells, and cone spells and lots of other goodies.

I know the cover-up-your-friends technique has been around forever, and I also know that it's been explicitly forbidden forever. I can't give you a page reference, since I'm going off memory, but previous magic rules said something about not being able to fool yourself that way. The spell would just plain fail. Now it's an agent covering your friends for you, so you can argue, "Well now that rule doesn't apply since I'm not trying to cover them." The counter to that argument, of course, is that the current method didn't exist back then, and the obvious intent of the rule is to disallow this kind of behavior.

That's what live GMs exist for. In previous editions, it was disallowed. The current edition contains tech which allows you to use a slightly different method to get around the wording of the original rules. Live GM realizes this is an attempt to circumvent a balance-necessary rule with semantic arguments, logic be damned, and shuts it down. We can assume magic works the same way as in previous editions, and I find it hard to believe they wouldn't mention this technique in the area spells section. "By the way, anyone who knows anything about magic uses AR overlay goggles to avoid frying their teammates with direct area spells. You should include this behavior any time you use trained NPCs such as security teams or rival shadowrunners!" Or maybe the gear section: "These goggles can be programmed to block designated targets with an identical AR image, removing natural LOS from the wearer to the target and allowing them to circumvent the biggest drawback to casting direct area spells! Happy blasting, space cowboy!"

I can. It was in the FAQ for SR3, the one where they announced that Magician's Way Adepts weren't allowed to leave the house without training pants. They said that gamemasters should slap players who tried that kind of thing with bizzare and nonsensical penalties to be made up as required until players stopped coming up with creative solutions to problems.

In SR2 and before, covering up half your own vision with a sheet of paper was fair game.

-Frank

...wow. I should have seen that coming. Anyway, the idea makes sense. The IC reason for not being able to cover your vision never really made sense. Really, it's clever. But IMO it's unbalanced, and for that reason, I'd disallow it. I'd have to come up with some "bizzare and nonsensical" IC reason for it, but it boils down to me saying "I don't want you to be able to do this." Is that so wrong?

Cause that's what I want from my games, players that never, ever try to think on their feet or come up with creative solutions to problems. Bad players, actually learning how things are supposed to work in the setting, and making logical conclusions based on that info!

Seriously, Do they actually say "until players [stop] coming up with creative solutions to problems"? Or is that your wording? Cause either way that's just bullshit.

Not "that doesn't work", not "please don't do that", not even "magicians can't do things like that", just a simple "punish players who do things like that." The players. Not the characters even, the FAQ suggests punishing the players.

It then goes on to offer a number of ideas to punish players with:

Worst. FAQ answer. Ever.

-Frank

I enjoy creative problem-solving, and applaud it in my players. However, there's a big difference between creativity and blatant rules-raping. Creativity was the time when someone shot holes in a water main, right above the opposition, just before the mage threw a Ball Lightning. Creativity was the mage who threw a powerbolt at her own nose, in order to blow off a set of mage goggles. Blatant rules-raping was the troll cyberadept with 5 different worthless geasa, who could punch for more damage than a Panther assault cannon. Blatant rules-raping was the guy who bought Gang/Tribe (a SR1 option) ten times, so he would always have 20d6 people on hand.

See the difference? I respect and reward creativity. I slap down blatant rules-raping.

Rule of Thumb: If you aren't moving you are dead.

Defending people "move" too. I don't mean just covering ground. I mean hands and arms flailing, etc.

Assault Cannons don't have a good real world counterpoint, but consider an anti-material rifle. You're telling me a lightweight, subsonic projectile should do more damage than a supersonic, 20mm tungsten penetrator?

...no.

And I make the player keep track of it. Which is the way I limit the trick, by making it a possible, but a pain in the ass to do and ultimately not worth it.

They're both going to penetrate body armor (and target) and come out the other side, so it doesn't really matter how much energy they have once you've reached that point. Look at the wound cavity. It has to intersect major blood vessels or the central nervous system to drop someone instantly. Which do you think is going to make a bigger hole in someone?

Now consider that the AC as described uses an explosive round rather than a sub-caliber penetrator, and tell me which should be doing more damage. Higher strength should be giving additional AP, not DV. Modern, human capable bows already completely penetrate big game. Just 'cause Beefstick McGee's bow has a 10-ton draw doesn't mean it makes a bigger hole; it just flies farther after coming out the other side.

Which is basically how SR flechette ammo works, if you can ignore the description. Sounds more like Mechwarrior needlers.