There is no device that runs on 440 volts around your home, car batteries and wall outlets run 120Vac. even other countries cap out at 210, unless you bump up against a high voltage transformer. And that goes for magnetic field induction, it only works at very close range (contact), and batteries and small magnets don't cause INDUCTION! you have to be running power through them in a specific manner. Go pickup a mac notebook, they use magnetic induction now, you have to have the magnets touching and power running through one.

As for the question of whether mages in 4th ed are over powered, I would say no. I have only been playing 4th ed for about 3 months, I have been reluctant to switch because of the changes they made, including nerfing the mages. Direct combat spells were always partially balanced by the fact that you have to have line of sight on every target, even if a target is within the radius of a manaball spell does not mean they are hit if the mage cannot see them (ie behind cover.) Where as a fireball will hit everything. Atleast thats how it's been since I started playing 2nd ed 7 years ago.

Hell, my 3rd ed gm didn't even cap the overcast, he felt a mage can try to cast as much damage as they want, but if they died from drain then the spell fizzeled, I had a mage that managed to deal a light wound to a greater dragon with a fireball spell backed 18 points worth of foci, 12 of them being disposable, and casting the spell at 2 steps above Deadly. The ability of a 3rd ed mage to overcast and guarentee his enemies destruction was the whole point, lob a uber spell and then be useless for the rest of combat (ofcourse magic loss and foci addiction were par for the course.)

Wow, this takes me back to my spell vs handgun comparison in >this thread< With no damage resistance test, a force 4 direct combat spell is significantly better than a light pistol, maybe even a heavy one--and touch-spell punches are fragging vicious.

Does anyone use the size modifiers from Arsenal for comabt spells? I imagine it would make drones just that much more useful and figure I it follows the same principle as visibility modifiers...

EDIT: Stupid double-post...

Wow, the idea of using counterspelling vs indirect spells completely goes against the idea of what indirect combat spells are. An indirect spell uses magic to create some fire/electricity/ice/what have you, but the effect that hits you isn't actually magic in nature(hence why it can be used against targets you cannot see) and thus shouldn't be subject to counterspelling under shadowruns own metaphysics. Counterspelling creates a field that dampens magical effects, but that fireball flying at you isn't magic, it was just created by magic. You would have to cut off the magic at the source(the caster), not at the target.

One more example where the rules do not make any sense.

The fireball is still a spell before it explodes, so counterspelling messes with the astral energy of it just as any other spell. I think I would allow the counterspelling to apply to the target of the indirect spell (since you have to aim at something) only. I'm scanning the FAQ for a note on how that works but not seeing anything right off.

But passive counter spelling effects the target, not the spell. Having it block an indirect spell is like saying that covering yourself in water should stop a bullet. Sure, getting the gun an ammo wet may cause the gun to misfire(assuming your still using old smokeless powder rounds natch), but it doesn't do anything if the water is applied somewhere else. Indirect spells are called indirect because the magic doesn't direct ally affect the target.

Counterspelling is still less effective against indirect spells, though, because it only helps with the soak test, not the initial success test. Two examples:

A mage casts a Force: 5 manabolt with 1 net success. The counterspelling mage gets 2 hits on counterspelling, so the spell fizzles.

A mage casts a Force: 5 lightning bolt with 1 net success. The counterspelling mage gets 2 hits on counterspelling, so the target only has to try to resist 4 points of damage, not 6.

See the difference? In heavy-counterspelling environments, indirect spells are better, because you are likelier to do at least some damage to the target.

Yes, counterspelling an indirect spell provides hits to resist damage, just like armor can. It doesn't have the potential to nuke it completely like counterspelling a manball does. So a force 5 fireball with 3 hits can't be nuked by 3 success on counterspelling. But the 3 counterspell hits against the 8P fireball turns it into a 5P fireball, so it doesn't suck.

IIRC, a transmitter, like a comlink, is technically producing an induction field at very high frequencies. What isn't wireless enabled in SR? Anyhow all AC power produces an induction field. Not just devices but powerlines. Did you ever see the trick where you stand under a high tension powerline and hold up a florescent tube? Guess what that is an example of?

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/005146.shtml

That's quite a lot of power, but not nearly as much as gridlink induces in vehicles to power the electric motors. So how were you planning on transporting that explosive that blows up if it gets a a current run through it?

Well, considering the rules in arsenal say that explosives hit by a lightning bolt only blow up if they have an electrical detonator in them, it's really just another case of the fluff not agreeing with the rules.

Or the rules being stupid.

Queston on the smoke gernades. Where does it say it blocks astral sight? Really nice way of fouling up my player mages but they are a bunch of rules lawyers so a page reference would be helpful.

Physical objects block LOS on the astral. Smoke is lots of little physical objects.

SM pg. 114

Smoke, being physical particles floating around, creates Astral Shadows as everything physical, & thus blocks Astral Perception to a degree (see Street Magic for rules on Astral Shadows).