Id prefer making accurate rules for my games rather than waving them around. Also you wouldnt like to play poker or chess with sketchy rules, would you?

I don't find the rules at all 'sketchy' in this instance.

Ah, and the easiest way to be more accurate is to be less precise. This is exactly what I meant by "take the rules as a suggestion and wing it". I often solving issues I have with the RAW by raising the level of abstraction; trading precision for accuracy. I feel the matrix rules are a disaster. So we just keep zooming out on the wireless world until it makes sense. For use that basically came down using the matrix crunch as fluff. And adding the mechanics of:
-Most everything is wireless
-The signal on mobile devices is about like a cell phone's
-You can be tracked on-line
-GM desides if a matrix action is possible in your current situation. All goals are resolved as simple or opposed test.

This actually saves you from having to have a binder full of house rules.

And yes of course chess and poker must have air-tight rules, even if poker's rules are technically "1) The dealer makes up all the rules before dealing. 2)Please look to the hundreds of years of tradition in making those choices". I only tolerate loose rules in systems that model the a world (real or fictitious), and have some ends value not pegged to the accuracy of the model: Shadowrun doesn't have to high resolution model of the 6th world to be tons of fun.

Abstraction doenst mean looseness. A rule like "skill checks are made with attribute + skill" is just as precise as it is abstract. You can have any grade of abstraction without losing precision.

Just to clarify, you're interpretation is that casting Analyze Device on a Sustaining Focus would add to your Dice Pool for Spellcasting? Does that about sum it up?

Well, no, there is no way that would ever fly. Because you do not use a Sustaining Focus for Spellcasting. Now, if you cast the spell targeting a Spellcasting focus, I could see it POSSIBLY being interpreted in that way. A Spellcasting focus is a focus that augments spellcastig dice pools. A fetish is also a possbile interpretation of bonus dice for the drain roll, since that is what a fetish bonus is applied to. In the end, like all the rules out of the BBB, it comes down to what your GM allows and I feel any GM would be well in their right mind to say, "No, that is not the intent of the Anayze Device spell." End of story.

The Analyse Device spell explicitly states what it affects in the spell's text: a device or piece of equipment. While the word device is mentioned within the RAW with respect to gear, I have yet to find (I would welcome anyone who can help me find other such mention) the phrase "piece of equipment" mentioned with reference to any gear mentioned in the RAW.

There are 2 parts to the spell's effects should you beat the item's Object Resistance.

1) 1 bonus die per net hit while operating the device

2) ignore skill defaulting modifiers for using the device

I would say that in order for a device to be operatable (hence operate the device), its form of use has to be sufficiently complex enough for it to qualify for Use Complex Device, while using qualifies even for Use Simple Device.

SR4, 301, "The Availability rating represents how easy (or hard) it is to acquire a piece of equipment."

So, that pretty much blanketly makes all things in the gear section pieces of equipment.

Indeed I spoke of casting it on a spellcasting focus, power focus or talisman and in a F1 sustaining focus. The spell has to be sustained in a sf because else there would be the -2 modifier. A F1 focus will be good enough for that because you use edge for this and so it doesnt have to be more than a F1 spell.



Dont blame the Game Master for a nonfunctional rule, blame the system. The spell as written is too overpowered as I said before. So it has to be fixed with a houserule. "Let the gm decide" is not a good houserule.

Sorry, I missed that part of your original post.

And I'm not blaming the GM for blatant powergaming such as dumping an edged spell into a f.1 sustaining focus or wildly interpreting and abusing a spell. Nor are the rules at fault for such wonkiness.

Actually nobody attempted to use the spell in this way. I only discovered the possibility to do this. So whos fault is it? Mine because I've spotted the error? Or that of the rules which make it possible?
If you want to play well you have to use your characters stats as best as possible. That is each players duty. I discovered a case in which it isnt possible for any player to fulfill his duty without destroying the game. Because of this the game is broken as soon as someones character has the AD spell and the equipment to make use of this bug. Either he destroys the game or he wont fulfull his duty. In both cases the game is ruined. So we have to find a houserule for that. I dont want my games to destroy themselves.

The spell specifically grants a bonus for operating a device. Sure, the spell says you can cast it on a piece of equipment, but it only says it gives bonuses for operating devices. Since foci are not devices, you can cast it on them, it just won't do anything beneficial.

Well, if it must come down to blame, then yes, you are to blame for interpreting the spell to have that ability. For the rules to cover every conceivable contrivance that players might bring up, the book would have to be an encyclopedia set. That would be highly impractical. To clarify the basis that the rules provides is up to those playing and using the rule set. The GM and players form a consensus of what is allowed. Theoretically, you and your group are free to interpret the awesome power that is AD. Spells are designed with an inherent resistance to their utility. Your interpretation doesn't pass my sniff test in that regard. That is not a failure of the rule set (or maybe in your opinion game systems should cover every possible contrivance and thus be encyclopedic in their scope) to anticipate the abuse of a power. Of course, if you have fun with that interpretation and go right ahead. I just happen to see it as blatant overreaching interpretation of the scope of a spell. I'm happy enough to have it be the "for 3 BP I can have any skill for any object I put my hands on and beat the OR through casting" rather than your overgenerous interpretation. Now, before this devolves to typical internet arguments, I'll bow out and let you get whatever last words you wish.

Stahlkorper, you do not seem to get it. You are the only person who seems to think this is even remotely possible via Rules as Written. For every one of us, it's not even up to debate. It does not work - no GM ruling needed.

QFT

Thats simply not true. It is possible to create an air-tight set of rules within one page. Some people have already done that. So it should be possible to do that within the encyclopidia set SR already is. I really like the SR4 rules but some rules just should be clarified.



I dont interpretate it anyway. I just stick to the text and see that there are many possibilities to use this spell and some of them are going to ruin the game. What you call an interpretation I call a houserule - and Ive already written that in this case you really need a houserule and cannot use the raw because it lacks definition of what is possible and what is not.

Stahl, please address the fact that the spell provides bonus dice for operating a device. Show me where the text describes a focus as a device.

Tarantula, as a piece of equipment, a focus is a viable spell for Analyze Devise. So, yes, you can get bonus dice for turning your focus on & off, if you want, or throwing it at someones head. You cannot use it on a focus to get bonus dice on your spellcasting, however, as it is you, not the focus, that is casting the spell.

Last part addressed to Stahl, after which I will ignore him.

A whole new meaning to the word pornomancer

?????????
Ok here I've missed something.
What makes sorcerers different from magitians and why do they have problems with assensing?

I think we are finished with AD. There are two valid rule patches ("interpretations") for the spell:


1st: AD gives bonus dices for any direct uses of the piece of equipment. An activated focus gives bonus dices but is not directly involved in the Spellcasting. It interacts with the spellcaster but not with the spell.

2nd: AD gives bonus dices for actions of the equipment as long as any stat of the target is involved in the dice pool. This bonus applies only when you are able to formulate a sentence in which you say the device does anything, i.e. "The gun shoots" but not "The focus casts a spell". "The focus augments my dice pool" would be perfectly right but theres no dice roll for that action.

Theres a 3rd suggestion: "AD only functions with objects which have a Device Rating" but this one imo doesnt go very well with the "piece of gear" in the spell description.


I think, I'll use the first one because it is much clearer than the second one.

It is a viable target for the spell yes. But the spell also says that it grants bonus dice to the operation of a device. So while you can cast it on any piece of equipment, unless that equipment is a device that you operate, you will get no bonus dice.



Same as what I said to Muspell.

i'd probably treat it as following:
cast on weapon-focus: more dice if you really intend to STAB/cut/hit someone with that Sword.
but NO bonus Dice for ANYTING magically being done and getting bonus dice from the Focus . .
So the Weapon Focus adding dice to maybe an attack spell will add dice equal to his force to either the spell casting or drain resistance test, or whatever a weapon focus does . .
but the AD Spell will not help with either of those two . . now the weapon focus grants dice to his mage trying to stabbity someone else with it . . AD Device adds bonus dice to stabbi people

I flat out disagree with the interpretation that it grants bonus dice to using a sword. Stabbing people with is is not operating the sword anymore than throwing a commlink is operating it.

I keep openning this thread and hoping to find something I'd never through off, but instead its more analyze device.

Okay, we get it, the spell is vague and open to interpretation, can we stop now?

yeah, i'd probably not allow that either, but as an example it works good enough and it was the first thing that came to mind for me . . because for me, a device is still more than some THING . . and should preferably consist of moving parts, not nessecarely electronic, but purely mechanic would suffice . .
if you want, replace sword with crossbow . . the focus being the crossbow, the crossbow focus granting dice to shooting tests, the spell granting dice to the same test, the focus not doing magical damage over range, the spell not granting bonus dice to spells being cast and getting bonus dice for either casting or drain resistance . . sheesh, gotta be specific around here <.< . .



you can stop whenever you like, the rest of us lot will probably still be bumbling along untill friday or so ^^

Well, for starters, Sorcerers don't get Astral Perception, which can tend to make Assensing somewhat difficult.

Yes, I'd say a crossbow qualifies as a device. So would a catapult, pistol, slingshot, or just about anything mechanical. I'm pretty sure analyze device is getting a second look though due to the analyze gun twinkage that is possible with it. Hopefully we'll see some changes that nail down this spell a bit better.

i've used that definition of deivce from the get go, more or less . . at least, as long as i have been active in this thread anyway <.< . .
Muspelheimer was nice enough to point out that my definition did not match encyclopedia definition of either the english or german word . .
but i still stand by my point, that nothing that does not consist of at least 2 moving parts is a device but a thing instead . .

Even if you do not consider a sword a device, it is a piece of equipment, & thus an acceptable target for Analyze Device. As the sword is designed & used for combat, the spell provides bonus dice on all combat uses of the blade - aka attacks & defense. If you come up with another use for it that requires a test, such as a crowbar, you get the bonus for that as well.

Well, in SR4, technically they "get" it, but they use assensing at a -4 penalty (-6 if you are using the optional rule for expert aspected magicians). So you are better off using the spell (which can be used astrally).

Valid target yes. But the spell explicitly says it grants bonus dice to operating the device. Since a sword is not a device, and you can't "operate" one. It gets no bonus dice even though it is a valid target for the spell.

D'oh! I somehow mixed up Mystic Adept with Aspected Magician. All I can say is ... not enough caffeine!

I looked up the spell description, and it did not say anything, but as a GM I would give them a chance to shake off the spell. Now all of them undressing and locking themselves in a closet....that would be doable and they'd be combat ineffective.

Analyze Device in my games ...

Melee Weapons ... No
Foci ... No
Smartguns ... Yes
Non-Smartguns ... No
Anything with a Device Rating ... Yes
Tumbler Locks ... Yes
... etc.

My top 10 spell list

1. Trid Phantasm
2. Heal
3. Stun Ball
4. Control Thoughts
5. Detect Guns (extended)
6. Mind Probe
7. Shape Change
8. Physical Mask
9. Magic Fingers
10. Increased Reflexes

It is indeed a mana spell, and I concede now that the exact nature of the "life" of an AI may therefore preclude the use of this spell with it. I need some more research to figure out what the nature of that "life" is supposed to be. Anybody got some input on this issue?

As far as getting the message across, my reading of "translates intent better than exact phrasing, and so cannot be used for delicate diplomacy" is that you cannot use the ambiguity for which diplomats are famous to say one thing but be able to later argue they meant something else. It is tough to obfuscate, in other words. What you really mean comes through no matter how you try to cover it.

In any case, it allows one to say, "Hey, buddy, lets talk this over without spilling any ectoplasm" in any language necessary.

Peter

I do believe translate is cast on the person who wants to be able to understand/speak the different language, not on what you are trying to understand/talk to. Thus, the mage could cast it on himself, and it would magically translate what the AI was saying.

emphasis mine, just curious, mind you, but: why? or better, why not?

Smartguns are a device. Non-smartguns are not.

Stuff.

of DOOM!

depending on your definition of the word of course

Yes, that was the response that ran through my mind when I read AllTheNothing's post, but the spell description says it sets up "a low-level telepathic communication between the subject and a specific target", so one -could- argue that both entities should need to be able to be affected by the spell.

Peter

Ok, smartguns are explicitly defined to be a device by the Rules.

That is basically my reasoning. I do seem to recall non-Smartguns being used as an example of something that was not a Device, but that might also have been something Synner wrote in a thread here somewhere.

The mage casts the spell on the subject (which may or may not be himself), who then chooses who he wishes to target, in the same manner as pretty much all Detection spells.

At the same time, a spell cast in the material plane does not reach into the astral plane and vice versa. If the Matrix is another 'plane', then the spell would not reach there. Do AIs exist outside the Matrix, ie. in the material plane?

Peter

I made no comment on whether or not the spell would work with AIs. In my opinion, I agree with you that it would not work, for the very reason you cite. Magic cannot affect the Matrix.

Sorcerers get Astral Perception, they don't get Astral projection. At least, in SR3 they don't, has that changed in SR4 like previously they couldn't conjure spirits but now they can?

Yeah. We covered the correction thing already.

So Sorcerers = Mystic Adepts? I thought sorcerer was just a flavour of magitian just like the hermetic, the miko, the shaman or the hougan/mambo (just to cite some flavours of magitian), where the heck are the rules for this fraggers?