Ok, something glorious has happened... I have figured out my original misinterpretation of the rules text. This post is going to be very long, and very nerdy. It will answer Eugene's original question, and render everything I have posted in this thread moot. Hopefully, this post will clarify things for anybody trying to parse some of the convoluted passages in the rulebook, regarding direct combat spell resistance.
Let's start with the following passage from the SR4 rulebook:
QUOTE
Direct Combat Spells: Handle these as an Opposed
Test. The caster's Magic + Spellcasting is resisted by the target's
Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus
Counterspelling (if available). The caster needs at least one net
hit for the spell to take effect.
Direct combat spells are opposed by a "spell resistance test". A spell resistance test, in this section of the book, is sometimes just referred to as a "resistance test". If that resistance test is made, these spells
don't even happen. That is the difference between them and indirect combat spells. No matter what, if you cast a lightning bolt or other indirect combat spell, as long as you get one success, a lightning bolt comes out of your hands. The opponents can dodge the bolt, but they cant flat out "spell resist" it into nonexistence.
Following the "resistance test", the target gets a "damage resistance test". With that in mind, read the following passage, the one which caused my confusion:
QUOTE
Direct Combat spells affect the
target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.
Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are
treated as Success Tests; the caster must achieve enough hits to
beat the item's Object Resistance (see p. 174). Net hits increase
damage as normal (the object does not get a resistance test).
2 things about the above passage make it confusing. First thing:
QUOTE
armor does not help with resistance
This means that the external armor a living target is wearing does not aid in soaking damage. It's confusing, because they state this right before talking about nonliving objects, without starting a new paragraph. And, coincidentally, a nonliving object's "Body" stat happens to be called "Armor". Thus began my confusion, which was compounded by the second thing:
QUOTE
Net hits increase damage as normal (the object does not get a resistance test)
The juxtaposition of these two statements makes it easy to misconstrue the meaning. The last statement is clarifying the prevous sentence, by saying that the object does not get a "spell resistance test".
The spell resistance test is made
before the damage resistance test. So, in direct spells against nonliving objects, the spell resistance test is replaced by a simple success threshold. Otherwise, the casting is treated the same way as casting vs the living. The object gets a damage resistance test, as normal. This is why several sections single out Indirect Combat Spells as having alternate damage soak methods vs nonliving objects, but no mention is ever made of direct combat spells in these instances. Direct Combat Spells are damage resisted as normal, using Body/Willpower for living creatures, or Armor x 2 for inanimate objects.
So, as it turns out, indirect combat spells (at least, elemental ones) are designed to be better against inanimate objects than direct spells!
Thus, spells like Demolish: Gun are excellent for their utility at filtering out things to damage in an area, but will not match a fireball in sheer power, when it comes to melting people's guns.
The damage resolution differences between indirect and direct combat spells are congruent with this interpretation. In a direct combat spell, you first try to
cause the spell to fail, then you soak the damage. In an indirect combat spell, you first
dodge , then you soak the damage. The object resistance table can cause a spell to fail, but it is not intended to bypass the damage resistance step.
The idea that there IS a damage resistance step for direct spells is supported by this developer chat from may, 2008:
QUOTE
Tycho: little rule question... Is it right, that I get a Damage Resistence Test (without Armor), if I get hit by a direct combat spell and fail the Spell Resistence Test?
Bobby Derie: Yes, that is correct.
The good news for Wreckers is, that since counterspelling for direct combat spells happens during the "spell resistance test", it seems you really can't counterspell against Demolish: Gun.
Ok i think that's it! Did anybody follow all that? To put it another way, Eugene's original combat example was exactly correct. Except, I'd say that if the machine pistol was smartlinked, it would have been threshold 4 instead of 3.