First, to be absolutely clear, I am not talking about glasses that have video screens for lenses, being fed by coaxially mounted camera systems. I am talking about otherwise normal glasses that can lighten or darken spots in their surface.


It does, and I keep repeating the quote.

You cannot use a method of targeting spells that is both:

A) a technological visual aid

and

B) substitutes your visual senses

If either of these conditions is not met, the forbiddance fails.

Substitution is the replacement of one thing for another.

The examples given are cameras, purely electronic binoculars, and the like. All record a video feed and then play it back on a monitor or a screen of some type.

AR glasses with the pixels turned transparent are just glass. They don't substitute anything. The image just passes straight through the lenses without being substituted for something else, altered, processed, or replaced in any way.

The rule is there so people don't cast spells through a TV screen at whoever is being displayed there. Not to prevent someone from casting through otherwise transparent glasses.

Heck, AR glass can simply have a reflective coating that allows a HUD to be projected onto it from an emitter. In this case there are no electronics in the glass itself. A laser or similar just draws onto the surface to create images .



-k

Erm, not really.

1) Windows
In our side's heretical position (namely that electronic devices break LOS for magic), the caster could still get LOS through a common garden glass window. If the window is a "smart" window laced with electronic gadgetry, then the mage couldn't. Someone posited that such smart windows are common in the 2070's world of SR, but I am not aware of any RAW stating that is the case.
Even if smart windows were common, it would hardly be game-breaking if mages coldn't cast through them.

2) Magic-immunity LCD clothing
This is a complete strawman arguement. Whether it is because your aura extends just beyond clothing/armour or "just cuz itz majick", the rules explicitly state that you *can* channel mana at someone in full body armour. The same would apply to someone in LCD clothing, there is something that extends to/just beyond the clothing that you can use to get LOS for your spell. If LCD clothing blocked LOS, so would full Milspec armour. Why is this so hard to understand?

Unless you say that a window is not a device, anything is WiFi capable and thus an electronic device. Cars definitely are electronic and thus the whole car is electronic and you cannot cast into or out of cars regardless whether the windows are transparent. If this were the intention of the game developers, they would most likely have written down such a major restriction, especially since thay mentioned that you can cast through windows (except indirect combat spells).

Actually it is not. There is no rule that says the rule that you can cast through clothing supersedes the alleged rule about not being able to cast through electronic devices. There is also no rule about what happens if an item happens to be both clothing and an electronic device that alters the image. Unless you provide such a rule, this is the logical conclusion.

@Astral targeting: You are mostly right. I forgot about using astral perception for targeting spells cast on the physical plane. I still maintain this is not due to the aura extending any measurable distance beyond the physical body but because magic groups all sorts of things into ensembles. You cannot for example target a cyberarm as long it is implanted in a person. If the viable target is a metahuman that simply includes clothing.

It's not a strawman, it's an illustrative example. (A straw man would be if I said *you* said it.) I'm not suggesting actual LCD clothing, though it was indeed something mentioned earlier in the thread.

With a grain of imagination, you can easily find other consequences. How does this proposed rule interact with holographic displays? Can you cast spells if there's a holo blocking part of your view? What about illusions (also mentioned earlier)?

As for this: We do know this is how it works. That's how contacts and glasses function in SR4, and it's how smart windows function (unless you're going to say that smart windows are actually walls with cameras to re-display what's on the other side?). (You can also have glasses "project it onto the user’s retina with a laser"; I'd still call that blocking LOS, but I guess there's room for disagreement there about whether or not you can 'see' things masked in this way.) On the other hand, we know that the quoted "electronic binoculars" *do* do this, because they explicitly come in optical versions.

The other interpretation is plainly simpler: you can't use technological *substitutes* to *target*… not 'not-use' blocked light to 'not-target'. Everything works as normal, and the one slightly cool, not-imbalancing, and rarely-applicable magi-tech combo in the game is allowed to exist.

Wrong, and this is why: the "LCD clothing" (I said ruthenium polymer, but ok) creates electronic images all over it. You can't target them because of those images, under your logic. Full MilSpec, however, is just electronic in nature, not in display, so it would be able to be affected under your... different set of logic also.

Speaking of display: would you be able to Powerbolt a matrix screen? Or would you have to specifically target the back of the monitor, as the front is "immune to magic?" See, as the rules are actually understood, this is not an issue at all, as that monitor is not substituting for your targeting mode. With your logic, one would not be able to affect the projecting side of a monitor with any magic.

@Yerameyahu

Not true. A Strawmen is just an argument you "argue" again, which was never brought up or used.


Honestly? If an hologramm is blocking your sight, you can't see the target...

No, a Straw Man Fallacy is to bring up a fallacious, vaguely similar point and refute it yourself without ever addressing the original point.

Example:
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Or, for SR:
1) Direct Combat Spells in Shadowrun are overpowered.
2) Therefore, mystic adepts are overpowered.

This is a Straw Man x2: 1) Not all spellcasters take Direct Combat Spells, and 2) Not all Mystic Adepts can even use spellcasting.

EDIT: By the way, Strawmen arguments are really hard for me to come up with intentionally.

The implication of a straw man is that I'm saying it's on 'your' side of the argument; that is, I'm implying it's what *you* think. (I should indeed have said, 'you think', not 'you said'). So, I'm sorry if I was unclear; my intended point was that the 'disallow' position is more annoyingly complex than the 'allow' position, not that we have to save the game from LCD immunity-pants (which, incidentally, *was* brought up, and not by me).

Irion, in this scenario, the hologram is only partially covering your natural field of view. That's the point. You *can't* see the target, so it's not a valid target, so it's excluded from an AOE spell. This is the same, again, as if the target was behind cover, except now it's electronic (which is apparently the only factor that matters, for you).

Actually, I was not aware that windows are devices. Show me the RAW saying windows are devices, or that smart windows are ubiquitous. As for cars, I remember that wa-ay back in SR1 the rules suggested that tinted windows were common in the 2050's to prevent people in vehicles being targetted by spells, but YMMV.

Please get your facts straight. We never said anything about casting at/through or at electronic devices, just that magic cannot be cast through digital arrays (specifically negator glasses). KI's claim that holding up an LCD screen to become immune to magic was spurious, because unless the screen was bigger than the target, the mage's LOS would be unaffected (except perhaps for visibility modifiers for cover if it were big enough to warrant them). Neraph's claim about chameleon clothing making one immune to spells was spurious because, as with full body armour, there is something that the mana can grab onto for spell targetting.

In my game world, this is because the aura of a metahuman extends slightly beyond their clothing. In your game world it can be "just cuz itz majick", or because "magic sorts all things into ensembles", or whatever. There is no problem in my game world with targetting a metahuman wearing chameleon clothing, it's that simple.

I do not presume to tell you that because you say "magic sorts all things into ensembles", it means that logically if all the mage can see is MilSpec armour, then he can only target spells at MilSpec armour but not the person wearing it. Please provide me with the same courtesy.

I am fairly sure you said chameleon suit, but regardless, ruthenium, chameleon, LCD clothing (which was the terminology Yerameyahu used), it doesn't matter because you are targetting the metahuman wearing this clothing, and the reason they can be targetted is the same as the reason people can be targetted wearing full body armour (where the mage only has LOS to the armour, not the person wearing it).

I would have no problem with someone powerbolting a computer or an electronic display: in this case the mage is looking *at* not *through* an electronic display, although no, you would not be able to target somebody behind it if the display were big enough. Incidenly, I would not have a problem with a mage powerbolting the negator glasses he were wearing either; in fact I would applaud him for it!

The point we are trying to make is that negator glasses, as described by Karma Inferno, are an electronic display covering the mage's entire LOS. Whether the parts are blacked out or not is irrelevant, according to our way of thinking the fact the mage is trying to target *through* them (and this "through" is important) makes the magic fail.

Now if you were to tell me that negator glasses were two optical screens through which nano-pixels migrated to black out friendlies based on an AR reconstitution of your LOS derived from micro-cameras in the glasses frames, then that should nullify our objections.

Shi-it, i think I just argued negator glasses into existance in my game world ...

If it is only partial, you would still have line of sight. The point is, that glasses, which can block everything are not partial. They are total.

@Midas

Would still be an electronic devise. (The pixel have to be darkend somehow...)

Wrong, could be nothing more then normal glass, and the image you wish to see is obscured by a an image projected into the normal glass lenses by a laser in the frame.

Exactly.

The only way to fully block LOS for a mage with his own Display Glasses or Display Lenses would be to use "Wallspace" program that LITERALLY replaces what he sees with a 3D overlay THAT HE CANNOT SEE THROUGH (I.E the programmer have not made the imagery transparent unlike the regular HUD that the mage uses).

Its rater simple really.

1. If it blocks the ENTIRE TARGET it cannot be targeted
2. If displayed through a medium (Watching an area through a display link that a camera sends to you) then you cannot target it.

Since they removed the Digital cybereyes from the rules (SR3) most of the point with electronic device display is mostly moot and is seldom a problem for mages. The main thing is so that mages dont stunbolt people through cameras and sensor displays.

I would say that the same thing goes for so called smart glass. Basically a transparent LCD screen that have the ability to show either transparent information or to turn 'solid' by using liquid crystal display (LCD).

what is needed here is COMMON SENSE. If something is described as NON-TRANSPARENT then the mage cannot target things - easy.

Display Glasses and Lenses CAN BE USED. Anything that replaces vision WIHT SOMETHING LIKE A MONITOR cannot be used - And a transparent display IS NOT A MONITOR.

A non-transparent display (solid, cannot see throug, wall etc) cannot be used.

Anyone wants to add targeting penalties to eye glasses and lenses, sure, haev fun in your games.

EDIT...I think I just had a rant.

I underlined the important word of your post. If the glasses do block the whole view, you do not get LOS, if they don't you do. That is just like a wall between the caster and the targets. Everyone who is obscured by the wall cannot be targeted, everyone else can. In neither case is the natural view substituted for an electronic feed.All the negator glasses do is reduce the obtainable information by electronic means.

If potential LOS blocking were relevant, all potential LOS blocking would be relevant, including smart windows, and partially transparent LC clothing (Zoe Second Skin Line).

Nope. They are neither of these things. They're clear, non-blocking glasses. The pixels can be turned on, *partially* blocking things. This exactly the same as a smart window (whether ubiquitous or not), which I've never heard anyone object to casting through.

The rule simply does not say, 'mages can't cast through anything electronic'. It says they cannot target, using technological things that substitute for their normal sight. It then gives examples of full-screen, non-translucent video sources. It certainly doesn't say they can't *not-target* people using technological things that *don't* substitute.

Small point, clothing is irrelevant for blocking LOS, you see the person then you have a target regardless if their clothing is showing wallspace software camouflage of a building.

Negator glasses are simply glasses that can lighten or darken spots on their lenses.

Again, again, AGAIN, it is not good enough that they are merely electronic.

They MUST also be:

- actually being used to target with, as opposed to merely being present in the user's field of view,

and

- substituting their visual data for the wearer's own visual senses.

Again, the examples given are all variations on "camera feeding a digital image through computer circuits to a display monitor".



-k

Y'know what? On a different tack -

It would not be all that difficult given the tech of the 2070s to rig up a set of headgear, that had a physical blocking element mounted on a tiny robot arm, that tracked the position of an ally and moved the blocking element to cover them from your view.





-k

But it wouldn't be worth doing, because this is such a minor, rare occurrence in the first place. The abuse potential of 'omit allies from AOE direct spells' is just near nil in the first place.

Normally I'd agree with you, but Irion claimed that you cannot cast through partially vision obscuring devices. Zoe's second skin line is both clothing and such a device. Irion could not quote a rule giving a hierarchy of rules for the two (casting through clothing and not casting through partially obscuring electronic devices). If an item is both, both rules must apply and at least you have a paradox.

The Teg-mentum and other holowear in Attitude (pg 157) can project out to 5 meters around the wearer. That must be one hell of an aura.

Ah, holograms is another issue. Since holograms can essentially show a solid light projection that you cannot see through (unless you pass a perception test of 2) then you will be fooled.

So yes, in those odd cases when someone looks like a bush then you cannot target them because your naked eye thinks it sees a bush and not a person.

But regular clothes regardless if they can show images does not prohibit targeting spells - unless they are so camouflaged you actually have to make a perception test to see them.