Heres why I refer to it as a single sense.

SR4, 182, "Many Awakened characters can perceive the astral plane from the physical world. This ability is called astral perception. It is the primary sense used in the astral plane; it shows auras, allowing magicians to examine living creatures in the physical world as well as creatures who live on the astral plane."

Not, -It is the sum of all the senses used in the astral plane- it just IS how you perceive the astral plane. The same as how you hear sound with your ears. You perceive astral with your mind.

Again, same page, "Astral perception is a psychic sense that is not linked to the character’s physical sight." Referred to as a single sense.

and mfb, those nervestrands can't possibly be also located in the optical nerve, so that you can actually "see" what it relays to you? What if you get the other modifications too, to the point where it works as a true ultrasound system? (Vocal range enhancer and enhanced hearing)

I mean, it even states: SM, 63-64, "The echolocation augmentation provides the user with a simple form of acoustic sensing that, contingent on the volume of the noise the character uses for detection and background noise volume, allows the character to make out general shapes, sizes, and distances to objects—building a “low resolution� image of his surroundings."

It even describes this hearing sense in the terms of vision! Why shouldn't this POV be based in the eyes? It can even function as a full ultrasound system, which even uses the same cover modifiers as normal vision (except for lighting of course... wait, that sounds kind of like astral perception.)

And just because it works like having multiple senses doesn't mean it isn't just a really fancy single sense.

i somehow doubt that the existing nerve strands required for echolocation, which this bioware enhances, are located in the eyes. and the text is actually very careful to avoid using the vision paradigm to describe the workings of the sense, using such terms as "sensing", "detection", "make out", and so on instead of simply saying "see". as a matter of fact, it specifically states that echolocation is not a visual sense.

I said in the optical nerve, not in the eye. If theres no nerves required for echolocation in the optical nerve, then how do you build an image of your surroundings? Also, "functions like a true ultrasound system (p. 324, SR4)."

Going to SR4, 324, "The ultrasound accessory consists of an emitter that sends out continuous ultrasonic pulses and a receiver that picks up the echoes of these pulses to create a topographic ultrasound “map� that is laid over (or replaces) the user’s normal visual sensory input. While ultrasound vision is perfect to “see� textures, calculate exact distances, and pick up things otherwise invisible to the naked eye (like people cloaked by an Invisibility spell), it is less adept at other tasks like perceiving colors and brightness."

So, echolocation by itself isn't described as vision. But if you get better vocalization and better hearing, then it is?

It is a visual sense, if you get the full package.

ah. let me amend my statement, then: i somehow doubt that the existing nerve strands required for echolocation, which this bioware enhances, are located in the eyes optic nerve.

echolocation functions like a full visual sense if you get the full package. you can, if you want, read that to mean it actually is a visual sense. or you can use common sense and check to see if anything in the text actually provides any link at all to the eyes.

the echolocation argument is ridiculous. i don't think i'm going to to take part in it any more.

The danger in that argument, mfb, is that I suspect Tarantula will counter that by using your own words and say that astral perception functions like a visual sense, but that nothing in the text specifically links it to the eyes.

Indeed. Astral perception functions like a visual sense. You can, if you want, read that to mean it actually is a visual sense. Or you can use common sense and check to see if anything in the text actually provides any link at all to the eyes.

In fact, the text states the is no link between it and the eyes.

At this point, I'd like to say that I am extremely proud that one of my offhanded comments has created circle-jerk nearly three hundred posts in proportion, in spite of the fact that I, myself, abandoned the thread long ago.


Masturbate away, boys; masturbate away.

THANK YOU HYZMARCA!!! YOU'RE MY DADDY AND WE'RE NOT WORTHY!!!!!!!!!

We have two intractable positions; neither works perfectly but both do work. For the most part, the choice of which is used is a matter of flavor because the difference between the two, while having wife game-world ramifications, won't come up very often in play.

Theres no rules governing how blindfolds work mfb. For a fully literal take on the book, cover rules are "Attacks against targets obscured by intervening terrain such as brush, foliage, or various obstacles (crates, windows, doorways, curtains, and the like)" Theres no mention of blindfolds in the cover rules, so blindfolds don't grant cover, since they aren't terrain or obstacles, as noted in the examples.

arguing minor points related to game rules on a forum dedicated to the game and its rules is a perfectly valid choice. i don't know about Tarantula, or Doc Funk, or Fortune, or anyone else who's had their say here, but if i had something better to be doing right now, i'd be doing that. i don't, so i'm frittering away a few minutes jawing about something that has no particular bearing on anything. it's a pointless waste of time, but jumping into a thread to wave your dick around at the people arguing there sounds a lot more like masturbation than anything else that's occurred here. so with respect, hyz, since you don't appear to have any interest in the discussion at hand, buzz off.

Tarantula, a fully literal take on the book would include the Target Hidden penalty, which explicitly includes any situation where the target cannot be seen. blindfolds would fall into this category. moreover, a blindfold is certainly an obstacle, whether it's specifically included in the example list or not. i've already gone over how it's impossible to truly differentiate between a blindfold and a curtain. the list of examples is just that--a list of examples. it's not meant to be all-inclusive.

mfb. Your claim is that because a blindfold causes the target hidden modifier with normal sight, and astral sight says that cover is determined the same as physical, that a blindfold must cause a target hidden modifier on the astral too.

Target hidden isn't cover. As you've pointed out. Partial and good cover are determined the same, however, target hidden is different on physical and astral planes. No light makes a physical target hidden, but they're very obvious astrally. Likewise, someone in a cloud of FAB is hidden astrally, but perfectly visible physically.

this is getting ridiculous. the basis of your argument--currently, at least; your basis has changed three or four times over the course of the thread--is that a target which hides partway behind something has cover, but a target that hides fully behind something does not. i really do have better things to do that pick that apart.

i honestly don't understand this. if people just looked at the text and said "i don't interpret it that way", that's one thing. i mean, my argument is not completely watertight, it's just more watertight than any other view for the simple reason that 99% of the players, GMs, rule designers, and authors think of astral perception in terms of sight. therefore, most games, most rules, and most official fiction are going to treat it that way. but what most of the arguments in this thread amount to is, "i don't want astral perception to be blocked by blindfolds, so i'm either going to ignore the rules completely and repeatedly, or i'm going to find tiny loopholes in the rules and blow them way out of proportion, so that when properly twisted--and with other rules and fluff selectively ignored--they support my argument."

honestly, the most telling point in favor of my argument isn't in the rules or fluff at all--it's what's not in the rules and fluff. specifically, it's the fact that there is not one single instance, in eighteen years of fluff, novels, Ka*ge magazine articles, SR Supplementals, or offhand remarks by devs and authors that makes even the tiniest reference to the huge problems that an astral perceiver would suffer from having his POV shifted when he perceives.

yes, that's negative evidence--but negative evidence is perfectly valid when you're talking about the extraordinary, and having your POV shift when you percieve would definitely count as extraordinary. nothing in the book says that Aztlaners walk around on their feet. that silence does not mean you can safely assume that they walk around on their hands. an entire nation of people who walk around on their hands would be extraordinary, so the fact that the book says nothing on the subject can be taken as proof that Aztlaners do not, in fact, walk around on their hands.

This thread has been going on for far too long, which is why I stepped out of the debate but have, because of my masochistic tendencies, continued watching to see if anything would come to light. And it hasn't. But upon rereading, there is a point I brought up a number of times that is an argument against mfb's case that was never disputed or mentioned after I did. I think it is one of the most telling rules against Astral Perception being treated like Physical sight, and that is that Astral Noise results in visibility penalties on while astrally perceiving (Pg. 114 SM). This is in favor that all astral senses are perceived by one sensor (not the eyes, since they cannot sense noise) and that one sensor is the point from which POV is determined.

mfb, its arguable that the -2 penalty for performing physically exclusive actions is a result of the POV shift. It isn't described anywhere where the penalty comes from, just that it exists.

In fact, its equal to the penalty you get for having a 360degree POV while moving (eyeband, in aug).

the astral perception roll, as with physical perception, incorporates all senses.

the -2 penalty is not inclusive enough. for instance, it would not apply to a perceiving mage who is in melee with an astral spirit--and that type of situation is when such a modifier should apply.

Just my two nuyen worth. It may have been said already, but I did'nt want to read all 13 pages. If a spell has "LOS" as it's range, and you can't see the target, for whatever reason, you can't hit the target. Dosn't matter if your touching the target or not. A mage can cast spells which affect whatever "plane" he is active on. Since using astral sight counts as being dual natured, I would say a blind mage could use this to cast spells at targets in the physical world. But ultimately, rule on the side of whatever cuts down on discussion and gets you back to gaming.

nm, misread

Anyone that wants to participate in a thread in any way not against the rules of the boards is welcome to.

In response to hyz's thread crapping.

All, we've got a couple of wires crossed. Ignore us for a few minutes while we sort it out. Sorry for the confusion.

So that nobody gets too excited, my original salmony post was in response to a member telling another member where they are or aren't allowed to post. It's just a nudge, don't sweat it.

Hyz, friendly request: please don't jump into the thread just to stir stuff up. Thanks.

it should apply for being in astral combat if you are perceiving or dual-natured, because you are using your physical body to fight. the native POV for using your physical body is your physical POV. switching to a different POV would throw off your hand-eye coordination by a factor of somewhere bertween a whole lot and a hell of a lot.

that's not possible, because it's still your physical nervous system that's controlling your body, and your physical nervous system uses kinesthetics based on a lifetime of experience using your physical POV. no matter how completely astral perception replaces your normal sensorium, your physical body still isn't going to know how to use itself in relation to purely astral phenomenon. and switch back and forth all the time certainly isn't going to aid the learning process.

besides which, this is another case of just making things up. we might as well go back to the third eye theory. you can make it fit if you build a house of cards from a selection of tenuous rationalizations, but if that's what the devs intended, why not simply spell it out?

"but mfb, let me turn that back around on you--if they intended astral POV to be the same as physical POV, why didn't they simply spell it out?" the answer is, they did. they spelled it out every time they described astral perception in terms of being similar to vision. they spelled it out by not spelling out any specific alternate scenario. it goes back to the question i keep asking again and again, which i don't think anyone has yet directly addressed--why, in eighteen years, has nobody ever mentioned that the POVs are different?

Why, in eighteen years, has nobody ever mentioned that the POVs are the same?

Equally so, 4th is a new edition, so previous fluff/sourcebooks aren't vailid sorces for how things work, simply because they're based on the old rules, not on 4th. It could very well be 1-3rd has astral and physical pov the same, and 4th changed it.

You are right. Now please tell me where in SR4 it specifically states that the Astral POV is different than that of the Physical. Astral Perception is not visual in nature, but the POV does not change, or it would be mentioned.

basically. the visual portion of astral perception functions identically to the visual portion of physical perception, except where specifically noted otherwise. since no specific note is made of the astral POV being different from the physical POV, it's silly to jump to the conclusion that must be different. and it's not just the fluff text and novels--it's very strongly implied by the rules as well.

And again, ultrasound is described as being a visual sense. Even if its a fully biological ultrasound system utilizing the vocal chords and ears. Does that mean the POV is from the eyes?

i have already answered that.

basically. the visual portion of ultrasound functions identically to the visual portion of physical perception, except where specifically noted otherwise. since no specific note is made of the ultrasound POV being different from the physical POV, it's silly to jump to the conclusion that must be different.

yeah. so?

Tarantula, you mean other than the fact that one is visual while the other is auditory?

If so, not a single bit of difference. No sirree bob.

No darthmord. I mean ultrasound is stated to be in the book, as overlaying or replacing ones visual sense. Obviously, the organ that is doing the perceiving in a biological ultrasound system is the ears. Why should the point of view not be from the ears?

mfb says that astral perception is described in visual terms (like ultrasound is) and since its never said that the POV changes, then it doesn't. (Ultrasound also never says the POV changes). However, with ultrasound, we know that it is the ears that are doing the perception, and it somehow is converted into a visual sense in the brain. Why should the POV not be from the ears, the same as vision is from the eyes?

If this is true, that ultrasound POV is from the ears, then it isn't farfetched to think that astral POV could be from the mind/from the aura. Just because it doesn't explicitly say so doesn't mean it isn't true.

"If combined with the vocal range enhancer (p. 67) and hearing enhancement (p. 65) implants (or their cyberware equivalents), with a little training this augmentation functions like a true ultrasound system (p. 324, SR4)." SM, 64.

The fact that they give a page reference to how it functions, means it functions the same as the ultrasound system on page 324 of SR4. This means it overlays/replaces the visual sense. Yet, it is perceived at the ears. Why shouldn't the POV be originating from the ears?

possibly because it says right there in the book that it functions like true ultrasound. both ultrasound and echolocation note where their sensors are located--in the brain/skull, for ultrasound (since it's headware), and the ears for echolocation. ultrasound and enhanced echolocation are noted as being (or as functioning like) a visual overlay, which means that from the user's perspective, the POV is the same as his eyes. welcome to the world of processed data. the ultrasound sensor processes the raw data it collects and assembles it into a visual image. echolocation works similarly, only you're using your native ability to echolocate instead of an implanted device. in other words, the sensor location--which in both cases is specifically noted--is not the same as the POV. with astral perception, the sensor location is not specifically noted. it has to be deduced from the rules and fluff. and the rules and fluff strongly indicate that it's in the same location as the POV of physical sight.

darthmord. Its echolocation, vocal range enhancement, and hearing enhancement. That makes a full biological ultrasound system. vocal so you can make ultrasound noises, and hearing so you can hear them. With the echolocation implant so you can make a visual image from it.

because, as my edited post says, it simply isn't. that's not how it's described.

except that your astral form is never described as having a 'mind' location. it's never described as having an eye location, either, but it is described as being able to see in a manner similar to physical vision, so an eye location can be assumed.