That's not nice calling Kremlin KOA a rabid, senile clock.

Er, but I really can't take too much credit, i really should give a lot to the kitten.

@Apathy Who is making up abitrary field of view arcs rules/numbers? And your "cone" is based on what? Outside an extremely small cone your eyes see diddly. Even that very hazy perf vision (vision modifiers!) of the outside cone (actually twin cones, so there is a sizable gap top and bottom in the middle) is less than 180º horizontal, and something around 120º (asymetrical, slanted towards looking down, to the horizon) vertical. Well i guess the horizontal when added together gives kinda gives you more than 180º (varying from person to person) but like i said you really don't see shit out there, little more than maybe light and dark, until you rotate your eyes. It is very hard to get a handle on how little you see without your ocular muscles immobilized.

Again, the stuff i'm "making up" is just an explaination of how the rules map to IC. You don't actually need it to play. Though it is helpful to GMs/players as a source of ideas for how to explain the results of a Perception Test roll.

EDIT: Anyway, thread's reached page 5 and i find it pretty much mined....and James Mc too stunned to be worthwhile conversing further with. Sorry mfb, looks like you'll have to buy that Comedy Central subscription after all. See you later.

I'm trying to look at things with your point of view, but still have questions:

• Scenario 1: You're tied up and incapable of looking around, and someone is standing behind you where you can't see him. Can you target him?
• Scenario 2: You're an unaugmented human magical adept (no astral percetion) sitting in a pitch black room. There's a guy sitting across from you in the room and the only reason you can't see him is that it's dark and you have no vision enhancments. Can you target him?
• Scenario 3: Same as scenario 2, except the room is lit and the only reason you don't see him is that your eyes are closed. Can you target him?
• Would the answers to these scenarios be any different depending on whether you were using single-target direct combat spells vs using aoe direct combat spells?
• Would you have to apply blind fire dice penalties in any of these scenarios?

Hehe. Well we've both been around these forums a long time. It has probably happened before. Having a differening opinion about SR4 (in part due to personal preferences, and in part because you are wrong ;P ) is likely just colouring over that.

@Apathy. I'll toss out this last clarification, because you yourself haven't hit any sort of "moron" threshold yet. If there is absolutely no possibility of the mage seeing the target during that complex action ("can" roughly means "possible") then the mage can't target with the spell. LOS is the "possibily" to see. If their head is imobilized so they can't see, or the lights are turned off and the mage has no extraordinary vision (implant or natural), then there is no LOS just like if there was a wall in the way. Likewise if the player explicitly states that the character isn't looking in a particular direction (are there any creatures in SR where just meeting their gaze is an issue?) for the extire complex action, or that they are closing their eyes and keeping them that way for the entire complex action (effectively becoming blind). Because that becomes a non-normal state. That is why i was careful to explicitly exclude the oddball senarios. Pretty sure I gave Haniball Lector on a trolly as one of the examples.

Think of it as similar to there are no rules that your second Simple Action shooting can't be spent on a target "behind" you. Just that there is a -2 die penalty for bringing your firearm to bear on a second target.

edit:

ugh, putt a bullet in me, im done...

the post made sense when i was writing it. but when i go over it again now, it just seems totaly wacky. still, one have to ask what happens when a caster knows someone is there, but he cant see him. not because of some solid external object is blocking the view, but because of some enviromental effect (including silly stuff like putting a hand over him).

The things you had before you took them out with the EDIT did bring up good points though about other options and how non-visual Perception can work in combat. It just didn't have so much to do with spells themselves....unless you are directing your spirit to Flamesthrower roast the guy they see but you can't. When i first read the post i actually went back and checked the subthread to make sure the discussion hadn't branched off into a general discusion about combat, because that is where it belonged.

There was at one time; the Basilisk and the Cocktrice (one of them was not even immune to its own Gaze, making mating a rather interesting prospect.

hmm, you got a point there blakkie. that shows another reason for using indirect combat spells under some conditions, they act as normal ranged combat.

now if only the book contained the confimation that you dont need LOS for a indirect area spell (i have a feel its in there somwhere but i just cant find it), a tied up wizard with a enemy behind him could drop a fireball or similar down on his own head, hope that his counterspelling works against his own spell and maybe take the enemy out without a scratch.

in a dark room, or with eyes closed, blind fire with a indirect combat spell could be in order as they shoot out rather then manifest inside the target.

so when direct spells is a no go, pull out the indirects and continue killing