For the purpose of determining the capacity and effectiveness of the sensor package, shure. not for the purpose of determining the needed OR.

Thinking this way you put... if you're using Imp.Invisiblity against a camera that is exactly this... only a camera... it's just record image (light) and show in a screen (the camera or the system itself don't do any kind of analysis on the image... you have to beat the OR of the camera too, or you just oppose your Imp.Invisibility against the metahuman guard that's watching the footage?

Come to the chat this Saturday, or wait until after the chat. =i)

That's only valid if you insist that a Camera with a Microphone is somehow technologically much more advanced for it's visual function (the only thing affected by improved Invisibility) than the sole Camera.

Which, by definition of the OR table, it isn't.

The increased OR for vehicles was a needed change to make flights at least somehow safe again... but it really shouldn't cause cause artifacts like 'The Camera on the lightpost can't see you, but the Camera on the Microdrone can - even if it's both a single Camera'.

In fact, at least for me (see my last post), it's not a matter of a camera or a microphone being more or less advanced (since you're not even targeting the camera itself with magic). It's a matter of the software involved in interpreting the image to find intrusion, movement or anything else being more or less advanced. So, that why i guess that's is more important the system behind the sensor than the sensor itself.

How does improved invisibility work?

Does it hides you/object from dectection by all forms of electromagnetisme, aka light based perception, including thermovision, infrared, ultraviolet, rontgen, gamma radiation, microwaves, radiowaves, as they are all electromagnetic waves? Or does it produces a 'see-me-not'/SomeoneElsesProblem field, where the people you are trying to hide from do infact detect you, but regard you as insignificant and step aside when they walk almost into you, in which case the spell affects all forms of dectection as this is a mental effect, beyond mere perceving something.

I see two methods
1) You make the spellcasting test, beat the OR of the object YOU are making invisible, NOT the object you are trying to HIDE FROM.

To be detected by a sensor who beats your hits on a perception test, using clearsoft+pilot/perception+sensor

OR

2) You make the spellcasting test and to succeed you have to beat the OR of the object you are trying to hide from.
In this case you try to hide from a security camera (OR 4), you succeed with 4 hits, but when security drone #1 comes around the corner, it'll detect you and your spell will hide you like the emperor's new clothes hid his adam's costume.

While a nice idea, it just isn't the case for the commlink with the camera.

It's 2.

Only the light spectrum, not the rest.

Or the wageslaves commlinks. At which point it becomes silly...

I would like to argue option 1, because if option 2 is the correct one, then when you cast imp. inv. and beat the OR no sensor has any chance to detect you even if it has a high pilot rating/sensor rating + clearsoft and making the spell description moot.

Now on the other hand, if option 1 is the case, then your team mage goes like this, 'ehm guys I can make you invisible even for the drones, but not your fancy hardware (commlinks, guns, cyberware, ect)

Now I'm picturing floating cyberware

I'm picturing 3 naked trolls

The thing with that is that if you think things through in detail, it would more likely be the other way around. I.e. a simple motion sensor without any processing will fire off whether you're an armed intruder, a stray moggie or any other random false alarm. It detects movement, that's what it does. Whereas the sophisticated drone is probably more complicated. If it sees some blurring then maybe it thinks hot air rising from asphalt, I wont bother with it.

I'm not sure this has any bearing on the argument, but it's something that occured to me.

Proof that for imp inv one does not have to beat the OR of the sensor one is trying to hide from

BBB SR4 p174

A spell cast ON a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted, as the object has no life force and thus no connection to mana with which to oppose the casting of the spell (note that only Physical spells will aff ect non-living objects; mana spells have no eff ect). Highly processed and artifi cial items are more difficult to affect than natural, organic objects. Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold based on the type of object affected.

//emphasis mine//

Invisibility is NOT cast on the sensor, but on an object/person that one is trying to hide. ERGO the OR one must beat is the OR of the object one is trying to hide, NOT the sensor, one is trying to hide from!

On the other hand magic is not so uncommon that security bots wouldn't be programmed to look for signs of it.

What really annoys me about this change is that it doesn't only screw over imp. invisibility but also physical masking. You could always mask yourself as something with similar shape to trick ultrasound scanners but thanks to the high OR nowadays that doesn't work anymore as well.

IMO, the obscuring spells (invisibility and such) should impose a dice pool penalty equal to the number of hits against the sensing target much in the same vein as how visibility modifiers in combat work.

Thus a person protected by Improved Invisibility runs past a motion sensor that is rating 4. The Imp Invis only had 3 successes. The motion sensor has 1 die to see if it detects the person.

This would lead to situations where some sensors will pick you up while others won't. Which is how it should be.

But they are affected by the spell (second sentence) and thus, OR applies.

In fact, don't .

Because then you're comparing the Imp.Invis against something that has nothing to do with Imp.Invis (something that capture movement, and not light/vision). Motion Sensors are what they are because of their simplicity... just like trip-wires attached to bells... are so simple, but catch you even with Imp.Invis.




If not because the Synner's posts about OR and everything else, i would agree with Dathmord. In it's essence, Imp.Invis affects the object/person who becomes invisible, not the watcher (persor or objetc). When you pass with Imp.Invis in front of someone who don't see you, he isn't directly affected by magic, since you don't manipulate his mana, don't manipulate mana on him, you even don't leave a astral signature on him. If someone assense the watcher, will see that no magic is affecting him (at least, not your Imp.Invis, anyway).

But... we know the rules states differently.

Some motion sensors work via infra-red light (such as the ones in my house). I used to try and sneak past them by moving very slowly (just as it describes doing in the BBB, in fact) and that works. They monitor for changes in the bounced back light, I think.

K.

Actually, it affects the latter (that the whole point - making others not seeing you), even if cast on the former. It's the same for Detection spells.

The ones in SR use ultrasound, but are just as cheap and defeated by moving slow enough.
And of course, they are mostly used to trigger the lights...

While I personally don't agree with the RAW, in that you do in fact have to beat the OR of the technological system in question when using an illusion spell. That's in fact how it works.

SR4 Pg. 200 under Illusion Spells
"Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold."

That's specifically in the Illusion section of the Grimoire detailing how physical illusions interact with Tech systems.

Now personally I think there should be a different mechanic for it. As I agree that you're not actually casting the spell on the system. It also solves the massive problem that has been caused by the new, ridiculous, OR table - which by the way also screws the ram/wreck/demolish line of DC spells specifically designed to attack inanimate objects.

This is ambiquity of the language. As I see it, only the hidden object is affected; it is hidden. The effect thereoff is that the object can't be dectected by any visual means, if the observer does not beat the hits acquired on the spellcasting test.
The affected part in this is the light, that can't be detected, not the sensors.

Nope, in that case, it would be a Manipulation Spell, not an Illusion Spell.

The whole point of Illusion Spells is to affect the viewer.

I believe this is for the spells such as chaos, vehicule mask and silence, where you cast the illusion spell directly on the technological system.

Then it is in accordance with both set of rules at the same time, hence no more ambiquity

It's for all Illusion Spells - and no, you don't cast those spells on the technological viewer, either.

It hides you from normal forms of electromagnetism. RADAR, Ultrasound, Sonar, etc... will pick you up. As would microwaves, radiowaves, etc. It only hides you from what are classed as



By this description, Improved Invisibility is a manipulation spell since it warps the light, while Invisibility is a mana illusion since it affects your mind.
However, it only affects the visible spectrum, so Ultrasound, Microwave, etc which are not normally perceivable by metahumanity and are only perceivable via technology wouldn't be affected by either of them.

Then we arrive at how the illusion spell works. If invisibility works by affecting the viewer it becomes a 'see-me-not'/SomeoneElsesProblem field, where the caster is ignored.

Except Improved Invis which is described as what has to be a manipulation spell on the visible spectrum of light.

Thus the improved Invisibility spell does not affect the sensor, and then improved Invisibility becomes usable at low force, for either visibility penalties or maybe sneaking past sensors on a bad perception role

New question

Does fling have to beat the OR of the object?

BBB p203

No... it still has to beat OR... since it's classed as a physical illusion and all physical illusions must defeat OR.

Truthfully, Improved Invis should be erratted out of the game... Invis with it... replace them with mask spells or concealment spells that always just give a perception penalty instead of quasi-science of light bending.

If I used an IR spectrum beam as a tripline to detect people passing by, by it's description Improved Invis would bend the beam around me. If Improved Invis doesn't affect the sensor, then I would set off the alarm.

Fling is a physical manipulation spell, so no.

Pg 200.

Physical Illusions.

Please read it.

It doesn't affect the sensor part, as that is a photodetector tube. It affects the methode used for detecting.

If you are in a room, lit only by a single lamp and I would (whatever) to the lamp, then you can't see me.
The question is: Do I affect you in any case, when I turn off/destroy/cover/ect the lamp, in such a way that if you can shrug it off that you can still see despite the absence of light?
Or do you go blind, when I turn of the lamp.

This is effectly what you are saying. By covering the lamp, I'm blinding you.

We've read it. Though I had to reread it as my brain automatically reparsed it to make sense first time around.

If the illusion spell mucks about with light then the OR of the camera/sensor/whatever should be irrelevant. The sensor ratings and software, however, should be relevent to spotting the inevitable discrepancies which arise, and thus allow invisible things to be detected, if not seen perfectly clearly. If the spell mucks about with the sensor then it's not an invisibility spell, it's a "fry sensor" spell. Or an illusion which floats in front of the lens, which again shouldn't have anything to do with OR, though it'd be damned tricky to pull off.

By the RAW, a mage "jamming the mana" around himself (aka Counterspelling) has a suddenly improved chance to spot the (physically, improved) invisible car at the far side of a field a few hundred metres away, despite this not actually interacting with the mana of the spell itself. I can sort of twist myself into half believing it for the mana invisibility because that's a way of affecting the minds of the viewers, but even then it's stretching it a little.

I've always just used "Hits are the threshhold to see through the spell on an Intuition + Perception roll, or relevent Drone related propety". It's simple, makes sense, and still means that high Force spells are useful. The RAW, on the other hand, are counterintuitive and contradict the fluff. I know which I prefer.

So does this retroactively affect SRM: Denver?

My home game is slowly plodding through Denver but staying current with rules, and trying to catch up to participate in NYC missions.

Denver tends to cap Karma awards to 6... if the new cap is 9... once we switch to SR4a, should I start awarding SR4a Karma awards?

Ignite is Physical Manipulation and it explicitly does. ::shrugs::

This entire discussion is about the interpretation of the word effective in this line

BBB 201



The only illusion spells directly affecting sensors are Chaff, Flak, Chaos, Chaotic World, Silence.

The problem here is that sensors don't get a resistance test. I would say that the sensor should get to make a sensor test to pierce the percieved illusion.

I agree with you. It should be.

But it isn't.

We have RAW, and we have Synner's post which demonstrates RAW and RAI are the same in this case.


It's counter intuitive, it makes little sense and I don't actually like the way it works.

But arguing that it doesn't actually work that way is pointless. Because it does.

Now arguing for the rule to be changed, that I'm all for. Or discussing house rulings, which is also productive.


But mostly, I'm arguing against the new OR table, which effectively obliterates half a category of spells and a couple of other incidental victims of the attempt to boost IDC Spells by nerfing stuff, rather than just improving IDCs.

And in order to argue against the new OR table, we need to be consistent showing just how severely this affects Illusion spells.

Agreed. Which immediately leads me to ask what house rules, if any, you use in this situation?

Probably.

You shouldn't have to alter existing characters because the karma they have spent was spent within the old, low karma, regime. As soon as you introduce the changes and move to more expensive stat's they should be earning more karma to compensate.

All that i see this rule is accomplishing is every mage having body 2 and shapechange to turn themselves into houseflies instead of using illusion spells.

I know. My intent for this discussion is to make low force object affecting spells usable. Because if we go with the new OR table, no mage with a magic of <4 has a chance to affect an object, even in such a minor spell as fling. Since you'r casting the spell on an object, you have to beat the OR of the object to be able to affect it, thus one can't Fling a commlink without using a Force 6 spell.

as per BBB p174


That's why I proposed a few posts above the floating cyberware/commlink when casting improved invisibility.



I think we all agree on this point, that the RAW as is isn't workable for quite alot of spells

I had a suggestion a few pages ago.
Use the new OR table x2 as a dice roll, GM can use the Autohits rule to speed up game play. Add body where appropriate (ie: Direct combat spells) or device rating.
Or
Illusion Spells: Object perception test -> Device Raiting + Clearsight Autosoft
Direct Combat Spells: Object resistance -> Body (structure) + Armor
Detection and Manipulation Spells: Device Raiting x 2
Although you may need to add a dice modifier to the above, those dice pools seem low to me.

This is a good suggestion. It would make the low force spells usable

Yes, but the dev's are trying to make it harder to affect tech. Compensating for high dice pools and multiple initiative pass mages.

Harder is one thing.

Requiring 18 dice to finally be semi-reliable is a bit ridiculous.


The amount of spells affected by this change is pretty long.

Chaos
Chaotic World
Trid Entertainment
Improved Invisibility
Physical Mask
Trid Phantasm
Silence
Stealth
Ignite
Ram
Wreck
Demolish
Animate
Mass Animate
Bind
Net
Fix
Glue
Glue Strip
Lock
Pulse


All of these spells are affected by the new OR table. Were these spells really a problem?

Or was it just easier to change the OR table, than to go and revamp how Indirect & Direct combat spells interact with tech and how they are balanced against one another?

Yes

Sad isn't it?


I feel like that list deserves it's own thread.

Along with alternatives to improve Indirect Combat spells and/or balance Direct Combat spells vs. tech.

Shall we continue the discussion here?
A thread about when to beat the OR

None currently.

But the game I'm in (I'm not running it) is not using 4A (and probably won't switch). So an OR 4 is completely reasonable.

But as you can see the problem with the new OR table goes well beyond how Illusion spells interact with inanimate objects.

Ram/Wreck/Demolish also get inadvertently hosed.

As does a large swath of physical manipulation spells.




Good idea.

Those spells were nerfed too, but at least using OR for then makes sense... since you're really using magic to affect technology (and SR fluff states that is hard to affect tech with magic).

However, the use of OR with Imp.Invisibility and Physical Mask makes no sense... that don't make sense even with the spell description (the whole "warping the light" and everything). That's lead me to a question:

1 - If you're watching someone, and then he use Imp. Invisibility on himself... you can't see him... but then you take a hi-processed glass piece e hold over my eye (no tech... just industrialized glass)... he will need to beat OR of glass to stay invisible for you?

That's what I figured... once I have a print copy of SR4a in my grubby paws... I'll probably give my players one last chance to spend their karma/nuyen (poor skillwires nut), and then kick the new rules into effect.