If you'd like mfb, I'll offer an interpretation for why a magemask works but a blindfold doesn't. If the eyes receive visual input, what receive psychic input? The mind. Thus, the mind is the focal point for astral perception, and since a magemask does encompass the entirety of the mind, it blocks astral perception, however, since a blindfold does not, it does not block out astral perception (I'd give everyone the -4 partial cover modifier though).

That's pushing it a tad, I think. Can't I just push my astral perception out through my neck?

Tarantula, please don't get people started on an existential mind/body debate. I'll assume you meant the brain recieves psychic input, but if you meant the mind instead.... I feel you might be opening yourself up to an argument you really don't want. Frank seems fairly proficient in logical and philosophical arguments and he IS a troll.... so I would clarify if I were you.


Chris

all of the text for blindness in SR specifically states that astral perception can still be used by the blind. therefore, blind people can use astral perception to get LOS. people in magemasks can't because astral perception because astral perception is not specifically excluded from the blockage of LOS.

Or, more correctly, it doesn't specifically include astral perception and even cite additional rules and consequences for other magical abilities the mages.

So again, which sort of blind is blind? What sort of blind is being blind? Does "blind" not mean "blind" only when it suits your argument? And where, exactly, does it ever state that astral perception is focused on a magician's eye sockets? I keep missing that part, too.

there's no need to specifically include astral perception. magemasks block LOS--all LOS. specifically including astral perception would be like saying "everybody who posts to Dumpshock, plus Doctor Funkenstein."

a person in a magemask is not blind. they are perfectly able to see within the confines of the mask--they can't see much, because it's dark in there, but their eyes are functioning properly. therefore, the rules for being blind don't apply to them--just the rules for not being able to see. there is a difference.

Newbie question: what is a magemask and what page of what book is it on?

It's essentially hood that zips close over the mag'es head, so taht they can't see. There fore blocking LOS. They also usually have white noise generators which is psupposed to interfere with astrally perceiving/projecting, although there's really nothing else that I've seen that supports that in the rules. *shrug*

again, you're misreading/misinterpreting my argument. as i've said several times, i'm not saying that astral perception is based on one's physical eyes. this is clear in the rules; as you keep pointing out, a blind mage can astrally perceive with no penalty of any kind.

my stance is that the location of the astral POV is the same as the location of the physical eyes, or at least where the eyes should be in the case of mages without eyes. my stance is mostly based on negative evidence--because astral perception is most frequently defined in terms of vision, it can be assumed that it works like vision in all respects except where specifically noted otherwise. in five pages of argument, no one has shown a single shred of evidence that the seat of the astral POV is not the location of the physical eyes; therefore, it makes sense to assume that it is.

now that i've had a chance to go over Street Magic, however, i've found that i actually can provide positive evidence--maybe even a concrete ruling. here is the specific text:

My last post was there to answer fistandantilus's apparent confusion about why, according to the rules, having a white noise generator in the hood hindered the wearer's ability to use their magical abilities. Admittedly, there was that one last dig in there when I presented the 4th edition text. And that was probably a mistake. One of those "the devil made me do it" moments, y'know?

Anyhoo. I've read the exact same text you have, many times over these last couple of days, and I still come to a different conclusion on how this one facet of astral perception works. C'est la vie. It's not even a major game-affecting issue, really. In fact, whether or not head-covering = total cover is the only issue here. I think most of us are in agreement as to how perception actually functions from a practical standpoint: shadows and other astral clutter hinder assensing and spell targeting. The only quibble is what it takes to achieve it.

In any event, total cover is only a -6 dice pool modifier (SR4 p. 141). It doesn't block LOS completely. Curiously, nothing does outright without GM fiat. There are only dice penalties. The rules suggest calling for a perception test to determine if it's visible enough (SR4 p. 173) because almost any visibility is sufficient . If not, oh well. If so, then you stack the visibility mods onto the spellcasting test (and, one would assume by extension, assensing tests) - which may render it near enough to impossible as matters.

Besides, even if you decide that a blindfold is sufficient to completely stymie a magician's ability to use assensing or spellcasting, the people trying to stop him still have to actually get it on him first in the first place (usually, not an easy task unless he's already disabled). And not being able to cast spells or read your aura won't stop him from calling up a spirit to totally kick your ass.

If you decide that blindfolding/hooding it not good enough, dual-nature doesn't let him ignore metaphysics. He still can't automatically cast spells at mundane targets because his physical LOS is subject to Total Cover and he can't target mundane auras from the astral no matter how he got there (at least, as I read the section on dual-natured spellcasting. I think there's further debate on this topic?). If he passes the perception test (no blindfold is perfect), he might be able to. And he can, of course, still use conjuring.

As far as a negative evidence arguement goes. Why does a magemask exist if a blindfold is able to replicate its ability to prevent (or rather severely hamper) magical activites (specifically casting).

probably because of touch-range spells, spirits, centering, and astral projection. and maybe a few others that i've forgotten.

i have a hard time buying the idea that the astral full cover that a magemask effectively imposes on a mage does not break LOS on the astral, since the astral full cover is only imposed because of the LOS-breaking physical full cover that the magemask imposes. full cover may not necessarily break LOS in every case, but since the broken LOS is what provides the full cover in the first place, here, i think it would be fairly silly to decide that the astral full cover somehow doesn't break LOS.

The magemask doesn't stop any of those things either. It just hampers them. Mages who go astral can't do anything to the people holding him anyway (unless they're dual natured) so thats not really a threat. You can still touch people with a magemask (and thusly cast touchrange spells on them), as well as call spirits or use centering to concentrate.

The difference with a blindfold according to you, is the WNG that causes such a distraction. Thats it. So, build in a blindfold with earbuds, that blast out the same thing. Is it now a magemask?

My point was, that if eyes are the organs to perceive physical sight, the brain is the organ to perceive astral senses (any and all of them). A magemask fully encloses the brain, thus blocking astral senses. A blindfold does not, as large portions of the top and bottom of the brain are uncovered. Allowing astral perception. Like I said, I'd give a -4 partial cover modifier to targets targetted via astral perception while wearing a blindfold, but it is a far cry from a full magemask.

so, because it can't stop centering, it must not be able to stop astral perception?

Here's an amazing theory. It could be psychically based in the area where normal, functioning eyes usually are, given that psychic body image is (unless the mage is seriously wierd) an idealized form of their actual body, and the head is the seat of all sensory input.

So it might not matter where their eyes are, or what they do in the real world. All that might matter is the mind's expectation that you sense with your head-area. I mean, just as a thought.

Edit: Plus, with this reading of it, you can make up a merit for mages so they can have all-around vision, or eyes in wierd places, or whatnot. And it stops a whole lot of contradictions from existing rules and fiction.

Rules change by edition, not neccessarily things like that.. Unless you can provide concrete 4th Edition souces that say 'astral forms look like whatever', I'm gonna go by what prior editions have said. Just because 4th Edition doesn't have rules on what the laws are in Tir Tairngire doesn't mean the TT book should just be chucked wholesale. Or just because 4th doesn't have any fluff on what it's like to be a merc doesn't mean that Picador's stuff from SOTA64 should be ignored and merc ops treated like shadowruns. You can't just ignore the precedent because you think one thing. Well. I mean, you CAN. But it doesn't mean you're objectively correct.

And as to the question, his eyes would be 'wherever the head type space' of the fire elementalish astral body would be.

That's repeating the same without actually addressing the issue. I'm willing to work with you on this, because it intrigues me. Let's say that the astral form isn't limited by anything at all. What is a form of emotion? How do you astrally respresent someone who's very proud? An ooze of yellow? What is an idealsed form for absolute belief in mathematics? A hail of numbers? I'm unsure what an idealzed form of belief and emotion would look like if that emotion and belief is in, say, strength? Would their astral form look like a titan and take up several city blocks? Hence my desire to key the idealization to something a mage can fundamentally understand - a platonic form of their own body or totem, or perhaps a combination of the two. A man who is both man and spider. Even purely totemic forms cause problems, IMO. If their totem is Mouse, does that mean their astral form is the size of a mouse? What does that mean for perception checks against the mouse-form? Do they suffer the normal die pool penalty for trying to find a normal mouse?

Meaning the fat mage might not see himself as fat on the astral, but instead has a sleek 'idealized form'.

Absolute belief in math doesn't have an astral form. Its your idealized image formed from belief and emotion. I.E. Yes, Fortune, a generic fat mage might appear as skinny on the astral. He might also believe himself to be much fatter than he is, of blimpish proportions.

Alternately, what about people who people they are animals trapped inside a human? What if they're totem is of that animal? Is there any reason they couldn't have an astral form of that animal because thats what they truely believe?

Several people have pointed out that astral perception =/ astral sight; that astral perception is a combination of multiple senses that correlate to a combination of sight, sound, touch, smell, etc. But 'sight' seems to be required for targeting.

Example: There's a 6x6 brick wall between me and the toxic mage. While astrally percieving, I can smell the stench of corruption on the other side. I hear his cackle of evil intent. I might even feel the heat of his toxic fire elemental radiating through the brick. But none of those astral senses grants me LOS or targeting ability - I can only get that if I an unobstructed view.

Because of this, I've always felt that the astral requirements for LOS were pretty much like the physical requirements for LOS - a straight-line path between the sensing organ and the observed object without opaque obstructions between. We can interpret the sensing organ as being located in the eye-area, or the face, or the whole head, or the whole body, or to be at the edge of the mage's aura (couple inches past the body in all directions), but since there it's not actually addressed in the book one way or the other it seems pretty much up to GM discretion.

Only if you agree that the blindfold is covering the sensing organ. Which, as I showed, is the brain, not the eyes. It isn't covering the brain (while a magemask does) therefore, you don't have full cover from someone wearing a blindfold who is astrally perceiving.

I think we'll never actually resolve this, because it's devolved into argueing about interpretations of text that doesn't directly adress the LOS and astral perception questions. Some people on the board believe that a blindfold blocks the ability to target astrally active beings while astrally percieving, others think it requires a covering of the entire head, and still others suggest that none of those work.

The one thing everyone agrees with is that you can't see through the brick wall.

My next question is an incremental step past that: Say I stick the mage in a big sack, and close the top. He's entirely within a completely opaque container, but his aura (which extends a couple inches past his body) extends beyond the the sack and can be seen by those outside the sack who are astrally percieving. Can the sacked mage still astrally percieve those around him or not?

The way it was explained to me by my GM when I asked something similar was this.

When you are astrally perceiving from your meat body you are dual natured, thus you are combining the two aspects. It is called perceiving because you are sensing the astral via your meat body. When you are projecting your are not astrally perceiving because you are only astrally active, it is your only sense.

Therefore when you are perceiving through your meat body you are sensing whatever astral information you get via your meat senses. So if you are blindfolded while perceiving then you are astrally blind. I think the reason that you had to make a willpower (?) check for the old magemask was because you were trying to perceive the astral while still in your meat body without using your meat senses, basically trying to project without projecting and it was very difficult.

Does anyone find a reason to disagree with this stance? Seems like it makes it pretty clear to me. When you are projecting your form is just humanoid because that is how you think of yourself. It can be just like and Icon and look however you want it too therefore you can astrally sense from any part of yourself. While perceiving you are still limited to the physical form and thus can only perceive from your physical senses.

That's pretty much exactly how I look at it and run it.

But as far as anyone finding a reason to disagree? That's like asking if there's anyone that breathes air.

i've never seen anything in the rules or the fluff that supports the idea of assimilating astral sensory input into a single representation.

Echo mfb. In fact, there is specific fluff (as of 3e, and I haven't delved that deeply into 4e magic yet) that supports that it is not merged.

See the bit in the 3e core book about how your astral form retains its senses, which are described as functioning normally with exceptions (or twists, as it were).

With your arguement of "use the same cover modifiers" then a mage who closes his eyes and perceives is equally blind as the blindfolded one.

Does that work for you too?

i suppose. though for stylistic reasons i'd probably ignore it.

What about putting his hands up to avoid targetting certain team members with a stunball? I.E. blocking the line of sight to those teammembers with his hands while casting the stunball. Do you permit this?