QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 11 2008, 04:33 PM)

Indirect spells are treated as a normal ranged attack, which means they are bound by the "shooting through barriers" rule.
Nitpicking here, but they are "treated like ranged combat attacks"
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Nov 11 2008, 04:58 PM)

and the whole barrier section is found in the combat part of the book. using a indirect spell when such a thing has not been introduced yet to anyone reading the book from cover to cover would be basically confusing.
This point is made invalid in the fact that indirect combat spells are explicitly mentioned in the destroying barriers section. Obviously, not wanting to introduce a concept not yet discussed is not the reason they are omitted from the shooting through barriers section.
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Nov 11 2008, 04:58 PM)

and the C4 does its thing by hammering the wall with a shockwave of of energy, that does its best job right next to the target. and spells, unlike bullets or shockwaves, do not loose energy by traveling any kind of distance.
Actually, they're coupled together, because explosives directly attached halve armor, and indirect combat spells also halve armor. Since barriers resist with armorx2, it is easy to say that for those 2 effects, they only resist with regular armor instead, as the effect of halving the doubled armor value is the original armor value.
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Nov 11 2008, 04:58 PM)

thing is we can bounce this back and forth and we still get a potato situation. both ruling are perfectly valid given the text we have in front of us, and only the writers can tell us if one is wrong and the other is right (as we cant set up a experiment inside the SR existence and record it).
Sure, we can. Both rulings are valid interpretations of the raw text, however, your interpretation is willfully ignoring indicators that point towards the other interpretation.
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 11 2008, 05:19 PM)

If it doesn't behave the exact same way, then inanimate objects would give no protection to an indirect spell. Armor does work, however, and barriers add to the Armor rating.
It doesn't behave the exact same way. Armor grants a bonus because the effect doesn't manifest inside the body, but outside of it. Look at clout for example. Thats an indirect combat spell, that hits with "invisible psychokinetic force". Why should such a spell with no physical object created be hindered in anyway by a glass window between the caster and the target?
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Nov 11 2008, 05:39 PM)

yes, but what is the easiest model that allows a outside attack, and allows the target to dodge?
The interpretation that manabolt and other direct combat spells ignore armor because the effects take place inside of the body of the target. Indirect spells manifest outside of that (say, at the edge of the aura) and travel into the target.
QUOTE (Hagga)
I couldn't wrap my head around that - let's say I scored.. 9 points of damage on a 10 armor barrier, net. And that barrier is.. a sphere, so it is magically going off inside. The radius of the spell is slightly greater than the sphere. Does that destroy the sphere entirely? Hole it? Do nothing at all? What if the structure was 10, the force was 10, the spell was a blast effect? What if it was 11 points of damage?
As far as I can tell, it's just ka-boom for the barrier, or holes.
Depending on the structure rating of the barrier... (but if we take say, reinforced material, at 8/9). You get 9 points of damage (say a force 6 spell with 5 hits. Barrier gets 8 armor, so 2 hits, making 9 damage). Barrier is a sphere, you targeted the inside of it. Total boxes of damage dealt = 9. Structure rating = 9. Attack has made a 1 square meter hole.
Since it is an area attack, I'd say that for every square meter of the barrier you effect, you do damage to that section, since the area of the spell entirely encompasses the barrier, you'd blow a 1 meter hole in every square meter of barrier, effectively shredding it to pieces.