No, no, and yes.

Ultrasound: HEADWARE (SR4 p331)
Radar: HEADWARE (AU p38)
UWBR: HEADWARE (AR p60)*
Lowlight: EYEWARE (SR4 p334)

*

But how is that any different from a cybereye taking extrasensory data (Light in this case) and providing a mage with vision? Is it something to do with light? Is light magical? I've never read anything in any of the rulebooks that says anything along the lines of light being magical and necessary to the casting of spells.



Ultrasound is under Vision enhancements (p323 SR4), thus seeming to make it fall rather squarely under the term 'enhancements'.

Please note that the magic section doesn't say "Only enhancements that can fit in a cybereye." or anything like that.

So, I'm still waiting on the difference between being provided with direct vision replacement by ultrasound and being provided direct vision replacement by low light that somehow makes one acceptable as targeting and not the other. And don't bother bringing up the mention of being able to be displayed as a map, because I can assure you that low light vision can be displayed as a map just as well as anything else.

Really the only way I can see the argument of low-light working but ultrasound not working is that light is magical and light is the only way to establish a link with a target.

That's an interpretation where you are saying "Wait, because it substitutes for vision, it is equal to natural vision for the purposes of spellcasting." A pair of cybereyes can replace your natural vision with porn, if you really want it to, and it effectively obscures your natural vision with the overlay. The text can be interpreted as "This is an electronic overlay that can either A) be placed over a normal visual field or B) be displayed instead of normal visual input." It's stubbornly picking at nits. And for the purposes of rules lawyering, it's quite tricky.

It is based around the mechanic that you have to be able to read the aura of something (if you had Astral Perception) to chuck spells at it. If all that you have is an image off of an electronic device, you cannot cast spells at the person, since all that you'd "see" is a flat grey opaque image (just like not being able to cast spells at a person through a painting or a picture).

Congratulations, you (may) have rules lawyered one of the three as valid. Note that this still doesn't let you cast spells through walls, merely use a different vision modifier to darkness and such.

Actually, no. The reference Karoline is using is a visual enhancement for "Visual Sensors and Imaging Devices", all of which provide electronic line of sight and can't be used for spellcasting. Ultrasound is still headware and cannot be placed in a cybereye. The only vision enhancement that can be used for spellcasting in a Visual Sensor or Imaging Device is Vision Magnification, which explicitly states: "It is available as both an optical (ideal for spellcasting at distant targets) or electronic (with real-time image correction) enhancement."

I re-underlined the relevant section for you - again. It states that you can use implanted enhancements for spell targeting, yes. It then explicitly states the exception to this rule (which Ultrasound & Radar both cleanly fall under, despite relatively poor writing). Even more, you notice that comma in there? The exception is in the same fucking sentence.

1. Rules as Written, you are incorrect.
2. Any arguments that could be posed due to poor wording are effectively nullified by developer clarification.

That being said, better wording & clarification should have been included in the book. There are to many instances (if which this is almost one) that Rules as Written is dependent on GM interpretation due to poor writing. These, put simply, should not exist; Cleanly written rules are fine. House rules are fine. Rules based on one of multiple possible (& often correct) interpretations are not fine.

Hence the "may" in my post. It's 1am and I spent 12 hours at work, so I was sure I was missing something. Good catch.

Can you point to me where that matters? Does it state anywhere in the magic section that only things that can be placed in a cybereye can be used to target spells? Does it say that headware cannot be used to target spells? No, it says enhancements that have been paid for with essence can be used to target spells.

Ultrasound is an enhancement. It is under the heading "Vision Enhancements" thus rather clearly marking Ultrasound as an enhacement. Ultrasound can be paid for with essence. Thus it meats the two requirements of being an enhancement and being paid for with essence.

And since UWBR operates under identical conditions, if ultrasound can be used, than so can UWBR.



Yeah, that is the section I'm talking about as labeling ultrasound as an enhacement. I'm not saying to use the ultrasound in a contact lense or anything, as that quite obviously falls under something that you can't use to target anything. The only way that section is relevant is that it lists some "Vision Enhancements." and the magic part specifically lists "Enhancements." as being what applies.

Oh, and I guess I should point out that I agree with the ruling to disallow UWBR from being used to cast spells on a purely balance issue. I do however think (And always thought) that ultrasound can be used to target spells as it is a vision enhancement that can be paid for with essence (If and only if you have actually gotten the essence costing one of course)

So you're saying that a cybereye is not technological? You're saying that it is not basically the equivilent of a camera in your eye socket? You're saying that low light vision is not a visual aid? It basically says "You cannot use a camera/other stuff to target someone, but if you have a camera in your eye and paid for it with essence (AKA a cybereye) you can still use that to target people."

The dev said that UWBR could not be used (Which as I've said I agree with from a balance standpoint) but he didn't (From what I heard) say anything about ultrasound. Basically every argument you've had against ultrasound can be applied equally to low light vision.

Edit: I'm going to put up a new thread for the ultrasound part of the argument. I really don't care about the UWBR part.

You are looking at a single word & ignoring the rest of the sentence, paragraph, & context in an attempt to prove your flawed view.

Fail.


A cybernetic eye is not a visual aid that substitutes for your natural vision - it becomes your natural vision once Essence has been paid. A visual overlay, such as those generated by radar & ultrasound, however, are substitutes. They gather data from a non-visual technological sense, generate a computerized visual representation of that data, & overlay or replace your normal vision with said image.

No Karoline... Muspy has the right of it... this has been done time and again. Clarified by the devs even. (damn crash and losing ability to link relevant old posts...)

You can't use ultrasound to spell target or UWB radar.

You're limited in that aspect to low-light, thermo, vision mag in cybereyes as those are the only ones which met the criteria.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm reasonably sure that a cybernetic eye substitutes for your real eye. The vision it provides, whatever else it might be, is from a technological source. The idea that the cybereye's become your natural vision is fairly questionable. The eyes are after all not natural and thus it is difficult to say that you can have natural vision from an unnatural source.

@Falconer - Did the Dev mention ultrasound as well as UWB radar, or just the UWBR? As I've said a half dozen times, I agree with UWBR from a balance standpoint, but I'm having some trouble with Ultrasound.

That's crazy talk. First off, it makes the game into a creative writing class, second, if someone's PC gets offed they're back the the drawing board and doubly disadvantaged if they don't have another epic planned for their next poor sot. Further, it doesn't actually fix anything. Hell, one of the worst munchkins I've ever met is published.

It's not crazy talk, although I agree that it's just another form of character incentive that can go horribly wrong in the wrong hands.

A gaming group should encourage behavior that it wants to see by providing incentives for such behavior. If there are numbers behind it and real tangible benefits, then it makes the behavior more likely to occur. If you WANT highly detailed character histories in your group (which aren't hard to write, quite frankly), then you should reward it. If you WANT a lot of mayhem and bloodthirsty combat, then it should be rewarded (we once had a game where you got a Karma point for every kill that you made during the run, because we wanted people to raise the body count to ridiculous levels in that particular game).

If you don't want that in your game, or you feel that your players can entertain themselves enough without incentives, that's perfectly fine, too.

It's crazy talk if you actually think it's going to fix any balance problems in and of itself. It's not even addressing any issues, particularly since some of most dangerous things in the game aren't based on anything particularly outlandish.

Agreed. Even without rewarding a background (which I am not actually opposed to - see below), it only serves to increase the problem. It is still arbitrary GM fiat as to which characters can take a quality or not, and it adds additional requirements for the player which may or may not be sufficient to meet the GMs bullshit.




As for character background, I do suggest rewarding up to 5 bonus Karma to a character with a written background, value dependent on how well written, conceived, & complete the background is (note this does not mean novels receive more Karma - I have seen 2-3 paragraph backgrounds that outperform 10-page texts in all three aspects). The Karma should be awarded at the begining of the game (or once the background is turned in, whichever comes later), & should follow all the normal rules for character advancement.

The reason for this is, in my experience, having fleshed out character backgrounds tends to enhance roleplaying & enjoyment of the game. However, requiring a background all to often backfires, resulting in half-assed writing, stories that don't fit with the setting, or random bullshit simply so the player can play. Thus, providing encouragement for a background that does not provide a significant advantage, while not actually requiring a background, produces the best results.




As to the original point of this, the GM Fiat as to what is acceptable for a character or not.

If there is a balance problem with an option in the game, making rulings on who can take it & who cannot based on what else the character is taking is fucking bullshit. Fix the damn problem - either remove the offender entirely, or alter it so it no longer presents a problem while still being a viable option. If it is allowed for one character, it is allowed for all characters.

*sigh*.. YES THE DEVS DID... you're beating a dead horse to no good ends. If it requires a computer to 'process' the results and convert them into a visualization... it can't be used. (btw: this also includes the echolocation surged ability which gives natural sonar... that's also a no go for spell targetting).



And Muspellheimr.. just noticed you claimed you can't target spells LOS astrally... this is blatantly incorrect speculation on your part. You're reading too much into the 1st and 2nd paragraph. Going back to the beginning... spellcasting has always been the only ranged combat option available on the astral. (even the adept 'distance strike' hasn't worked... as that only works with physical attacks, not astral combat). There's been some changes (such as drain used to always be physical while projecting), but any mana spell has always been usable on the astral.

Going back to SR2... p130... "a magician cannot, however, cast spells directly at invisible beings or beings in astral space except by using enhanced vision or astral perception as appropriate".... "a good rule of thumb is that a magician must be able to see a target with their own eyes or a natural extension of those eyes."... astral perception would be considered a natural extension... "The image of a target must be the original image. Nothing which translates the image from another medium works". (IE: sonar or radar...)

So overall, shadowrun has been remarkably consistent over time over exactly what can be used... all that's going on now is the typical rules lawyering over exact wording.

Try reading it again. I clearly stated that I remember there being rules for using Astral Perception in place of Line of Sight for spell targeting in Shadowrun 4, but for some reason I cannot seem to find it. Thus, going only by what I can currently find, you cannot target Line of Sight spells with Astral Perception, limiting you to Touch range spells.

I thought I made it clear that this is obviously incorrect, but I am unable to find rules quotes to support that. If you find the rules for it, let me know where they went.

First off all rules are in the later books are optional. Period. You are free to allow or disallow traits that affect the game experience as a GM, and those people who bitch the most about not getting certain traits for mechanical advantage I can do without in my games. The book even gives the GM the option to disallow as they see fit. I am a rules lawyer at heart, but at the end of the day I found it adds nothing to the game.

Second, I give a lot more BP at initial creation depending on the depth of the character's story. It is the player's responsibility to decide if they want said points or traits ad to justify their inclusion for their character in the game. It is their responsibility to ensure their traits work with the group. It is my responsibility as a GM to ensure that balance is based more on face/spotlight time for the character and their advantages/disadvantages actually come into play. At the end of the day it is everyone's responsibility to act civilly and try to enhance the enjoyment of the game.

I do expect players to have a concept first and build around the concept rather than min maxing. Not as big of a deal with Karma generation, but a huge deal for BP. That is why I add a fair number of points 20-30 depending on how in depth (usually 1 per major question) they are usually in connections, various low level skills and qualities.

Good thing for both of us that I don't play in your game then.

"Up to the GM" is a poor excuse used to avoid proper mechanical balacing of a game. "Spotlight time" does absolutely nothing to balance a character - if I'm a "combat expert", with skills equal to a rent-a-cop, and the magician is a high-magic initiate, it doesn't matter how much the game focuses on me. I suck. Particularly compared to the rest of the group.


If an option is available to another character, it is available to me as well should I choose to take it. If you disallow for one, you need to disallow for all. The only exception to this is unique features designed by the player (with GM approval) that are built / developed by the character. But even for those, once they are in the game, they are available for anyone with the resources to acquire them (training / formulaes for magical effects, plans / construction for equipment, etc.).

Casting magic, at range, on the astral:

Targeting:
A magician in the physical world can only cast spells on
targets that are in the physical world. Similarly, a magician in
astral space can only cast spells on targets that have an astral
form (though the auras of things in the physical world can
be seen, auras alone cannot be targeted). An astrally perceiving
(or otherwise dual natured) magician can cast spells on a
target in either the physical world or in astral space. An astral
target can only be affected by mana spells—even if the magician
is in the physical world astrally perceiving—as it has no
physical presence.

Astral combat:
Astral combat is resolved in the same way as physical combat.
Astrally perceiving and dual natured characters use their
Physical attributes and skills to fight opponents with a physical
body, and their Willpower + Astral Combat skill to fight wholly
astral entities. Astrally projecting characters use their Mental
attributes in place of Physical ones (see the Astral Attributes
Table, above) along with the Astral Combat skill. There are
no known ranged weapons that function in astral space, so unarmed
attacks, active weapon foci (see p. 192), and mana spells
are the only options for astral combat.

Yes, that's all I could find, and it doesn't actually say you can use Astral Perception for spell targeting, only that a Perceiving mage can cast spells on either physical or astral, & only mana spells can be cast on the astral.

I'm sure there was something allowing Astral Perception for spell targeting, but again I cannot find it.

If you have skills of a rent-a-cop that is your own fault as I only give bonuses not negatives for players with a well designed story. I also expect a well rounded character just so I don't tell the player go make a 3 course meal because we are going to do the planning and legwork phases, and you have 0 contacts and no social skills with a charisma of 1 so you can't participate in this phase of the game. I also expect a player to make a character that meets his concept. This is why I view the game as collaborative instead of adversarial. My time is too limited to be fighting with players who want to min-max at the expense of the game/other players. If a player wants to be a combat expert I am going to kick back his character sheet if it doesn't match the concept of a combat expert (ie combat skills of 1 and 2). Also I don't care if one player is a high magic initiate if they have no combat spells and their powers are psychometry and divining because their "karma cost", while high does not invalidate any of the other players. If I am going why is this person running with this group or why would this group allow this person then the character probably needs some tweaks.

And if one option is open to one player it doesn't give carte blanche for a different player to have it also. Example modified connection rating. If the player has a contact 3 with 6 loyalty there best be a good reason. Another has a connection 6 rating with 3 loyalty that again has to be cleared. Another player has a ganger group 500+ people but at a conection of 2 with loyalty of 2 may be acceptable. If a different player says well they have loyalty, connection and groups I can have 1 connection, 6 loyalty and 20+99 people. I am going to veto it entirely because I am not running a game where the player has a cult to die for him even though the points are identical. It is a matter of scale and if the traits dominate the group. The same would apply to initiates. If we are using karma build I may allow initiation, but if the player decides to go for low values and a high Ally that is better than the players it is getting kicked back. To me that is the balance I enforce and by the meaning of facetime. The NPCs or 1 player does not monopolize or invalidate the other PCs. It is also up to the group to try to mesh well. I am sick and tired of dark mysterious stranger/loner or the player who likes to kill off other players.

Also for balance if a player decides to have a more average character where the BPs are identical, but the karma is vastly different I am going to give more leeway than for the player who min-maxes. In a level based point system you can balance fairly easily, but in an open skill based system balance is measured more by utility rather than raw power. I freely admit Runner's companion has major cost issues for different metavariants and I handle them in my own way.

You completely missed the entire fucking point.

The simple version is that a game whose balance revolves around GM Fiat is poorly designed. A game whose play revolves around GM Fiat is poorly run. And you appear to be arguing that not only are both acceptable, but how a game should be. That is complete fucking bullshit, as it is equivalent to saying that a GM does not represent the world & story, but that the GM represents God.

Every game I have ever seen that the GM views himself (or runs the game as if he is) God has failed miserably, as it is not fun for anyone else involved. These are also the games that I only join to intentionally disrupt because the GM is a complete fucking moron.

Um, dude, read the first paragraph...

Auras cannot be targeted. Period. That means targeting non-astral beings while astrally perceiving is impossible.

Anyway, we have severely jacked the OP's thread, with several re-hashed stale arguments at that.

In my game, I started with the BBB only for character creation, since all of the players had never played Shadowrun before, and I had only that book at the time. And even within the BBB, I introduced more advanced rules/concepts gradually, with each session introducing another rule or concept as a highlight. I still have not touched technomancy, as I find it an unnecessary complication to a very complicated game so far. I have considered throwing a technomancer villain at the PC hacker sometime, but haven't yet.

I pulled the Qualities from all the supplemental books for replacement characters to use, just because I felt the BBB was a little lacking for some character types.

Yes, they can be. It's called Touch spells.

And yet again, I am quite certain that you can use Astral Perception to target Line of Sight spells, I just cannot find the supporting rules quotes; I guess I'm going to have to check in Street Magic & pre-Anniversary Shadowrun 4 to find it.

Auras are not astra forms. Get the difference. EVERYFUCKINGTHING has an aura, but almost nothing astral or dual natured capable of being targeted by an astrally projecting mage.* Even touch spells do not work in this fashion.

*Edit: I wrote this sentence poorly, what I mean is that everything has an aura (almost nothing being astral-only or dual natured) and none of it is targetable (unless its astral only or dual natured).

Living beings (be it plant, metahuman, or dog) possess auras. Non-living objects do not - they are shadows, or areas devoid of auras.

And I wrote poorly, but I am correct - I was referencing the "cannot target physical beings while perceiving" section. You can use Touch-range spells to target based on their aura - you simply have to touch the physical component of that aura. You can also use Touch spells (if they are Mana) against Astral Forms in essentially the same manner.

Ok, that was clearer.



Note entirely true, by my understanding. They have shadows, but are still auras. They're nonliving auras that have some substance to them, unlike a void.

For instance, a sign that reads "danger, high voltage" on the physical could still be "read" (at least determining that 1) it is a sign and 2) it conveys a sense of danger) on the astral. A love letter would embody notions of happiness, joy, passion, and love. The exact contents are unreadable, but the soul of the words is still evident.

You want to throw something out entirely because it maybe abused. I think it is situationally dependent.

I am not saying that a game system should be unbalanced, but rather qualities in SR4 it is easily dealt with and in many cases can add something if the player does not abuse it. This is not like a level based system where changing or tweaking a class can do a lot more harm than good. In a skill based system the mechanic can be just as useful as the cyber samurai. And yes, I do favor balance because it makes my job easier by not having to alter costs to bring it inline.

Every GM runs the game as a god the difference is if they view their story/world more important than their players. My biggest complaint as a GM has been that stories should be player driven not GM driven. The Mr. Johnson missions should only occur long enough until the players decide to stop being hire help and are instead the initiators of the next session. I should design adventures based on what they give me and it is why I richly award points for a back story.

Wow, you actually join games to ruin everyone else's fun? If I don't like how a game is run I usually volunteer being the GM.

No, I want to change something so it is 1) Not overpowered. 2) Not underpowered. 3) Achieves it's desired goal. 4) Cannot be abused through various combinations.

If for some reason this is impracticable or unachievable, then yes, it is better to simply remove the offender than declare that one player may select it and another cannot based on arbitrary GM Fiat & variable views of what constitutes abuse, despite both characters meeting any prerequisites it may have.


And no, not every GM runs the game as a god. Every good GM I have seen actually does nothing of the sort. God is an "All Powerful" entity capable of changing things at a whim. A good GM runs a game not as God, but as the various NPC's that inhabit the world, and a "force of nature" as necessary, governing the local environment & weather conditions as appropriate.

[redacted]
Was thinking I was in the HA thread which was the direction I made my reply, whereas this was more general.

I think we agree on points 1, 2, 3. There are too many different options for number 4 to be practical, and this is why I believe that one should evaluate it on a case by case basis. You might not like it, but at the end of the day my decision is determined on whether it will enhance the game or disrupt it. If you want to play a troll and everyone else wants to play in Tir Tairngire as elves then I think it is in everyone's best interest you play as an elf or find another group. It is why I believe character creation should first be about the type of game people want to play, then a concept and then character creation. It makes the game much better for all.

I have several times gone back to a player after a few sessions and asked them to modify their character because it was disruptive (done the same as a player with GM made characters). The character was in the rules, did everything mechanically fine, the character was roleplayed well, but it disrupted the game. I have also told a player if he does not act out his flaws or stats then I will put him in karma debt or will shuffle his stats around. There better be a damn good reason on a character sheet to have a minimal value on any attribute (pixies excepted due to the narrow range of stats for body and strength).

Your definition still sounds like a god. It sounds more like you are more worried about a GM being capricious, petty and controlling the players because it is about the GM not the group. My view as GM is to ensure everybody has fun and if there is a problem to remove it. So it is up to the player to show why he won't abuse some combinations and how it will help the game rather than hurt it. So my games try to be player centric, just not having 1 player suck up the focus of the game.

Muspellsheimr:

I see what you're saying, but I think you're just doing an exercise in pointless rules lawyering here. Previous editions have considered astral perception valid for spell LOS for a very long time. No one has ever once suggested that this has changed in 4e. And the current edition does as well (a blind man is no longer blind on the astral... he has psychic vision, psychic hearing, psychic touch...). But the targeting section of spellcasting 101 has 3 independent freestanding paragraphs.

In the first paragraph. "A metahuman spellcaster can target anyone or anything she can see directly w/ her natural vision.". IF you rule the first para only goes for natural mundane vision (which I wouldn't)... then you have the independent free standing second paragraph. "The act of choosing a target establishes..... Under the basic Shadowrun rules, such a link requires line of sight or touch."... The following sentences apply to technological means and can't be used to rule out astral perception. (non-basic refers to ritual targetting)

That's why I said you're reading too much into it. It's only an exercise in rules lawyering at that point.

The third independent paragraph only deals w/ astral can only affect astral... physical can only affect physical... and if you're on both you can target or be targetted on both. (though one thing they needed to make clearer and didn't is that spells don't cross plane barriers... the spell either effects the astral or the physical, not both.) p176 "Spells ar enever dual-natured, because they are created through mana, and mana permeates both planes". (EG: a caster couldn't stunball a physically present mage, his mundane guards, and his non-materialzied spirits w/ a single casting... because he can 'see' them all at once and is active on both planes... he'd need to multicast 2 copies... one physical, one astral (potentially hitting the other mage twice if he's also dual-natured at the time). Even my very old school GM hasn't caught that one... though my use of that for 'surgical' AOE effects might be part of the reason... (fond of taking out spirit packs w/ it w/o harming the adetps/street sams etc. w/ friendly fire).


Something a lot of people don't stop to realize is just because you've located a target does NOT mean you have LOS (the requirement). Just because UWB has detected something through a wall does not mean that the wall is not there. If you fire a gun, the wall still blocks LOS and will act as a barrier. Even mana barriers have special wording stating that they obscure but don't block LOS.

In a previous edition the strato drone was legal, even though it explicitly came with a medium machinegun that is F12, and something like 400 rounds of ammo. The machine gun and the ammo cost about twice what the drone that included them cost.

So you won't allow cybereyes? Well, that's fair.

Oh, you didn't think about that... How do you think a cybereye process visual data? There is a processor involved in scanning the array of sensors and converting it into a visual signal for everything in a cybereye.

You're just trying to be difficult kzt... you know the rules specifically allow cybereyes. You're only wasting thread space by making a pointless attack. It's clear from prior context I was referring only to certain special sensors which come up from time to time... and we've lost the ability to link/cite the devs clarifications due to the board crash.

They only disallow techs which translate things like radar or sonar into visual overlays.

IE: if the image can go straight from the camera onto the optic nerve... it's good. If you need to pick it up w/ an antenna, microphone, etc... then process it... then put it as a 'faux' image... it's no go.

This is pointless trolling. You made your point; we disagree; the devs are on our side; please stop.

I think Humanis is right about trolls - they just misunderstood which kind of troll they should be crusading against.

For the record, I read that thread thoroughly before the crash. I remember it too. Nonvisual sensors (anything that doesn't expand someone's natural vision, but rather supplements it) can't be used for spell targeting, even if said expansion manifests as an overlay on the user's vision. Low-light and thermo improve natural visual capability. Radar (UWB or not), sonar (incl. ultrasound), etc. do not. Can we PLEASE move on now?

The output from a normal spectrum camera is a video signal. The output from a UWB camera is a video signal. Both use extensively massaged EM signals processed by high speed electronic components to produce an output signal that is able to be perceived as a picture by a human.

The output from a remote drone is also a video signal.

Stop trolling.

I have no problems with ultrasound or sonar being used to target spells. I still believe the intention is for an unobstructed path (draw a line from spellcaster to target) while still having the capability to clearly locate your target. This gives a rational explanation for why clairvoyance is not allowed to be used to target because it does not meet the criteria of unobstructed path.

Magesight goggles then? Mirrors? Glass? What constitutes a "Line of Effect"?

So if there is a solid obstacle in the LOS you can't cast a spell at it? So what do you think of windows? Or Endoscopes?

Stop whining. Come up with a decent argument for you position. Or is the only argument you have is appeal to authority?

I do believe we have given a number of arguments, even including non-electronic cybereyes and vision enhancements that could be found in previous editions. Which have been removed for the sake of simplicity.

I don't like the idea of endoscopes. I think they cause enough problems. I don't think it is fair for players to have to deal with a mage who casts from an underground bunker, but has an endoscope to cast at them. Similar thing about having the Street Sam sneaking an endoscope around several passage ways. At the end of the day the spell comes from the aura/physical being of the mage and has to move in a direct path towards its target.

As for windows it depends. Usually I would put them as some type of cover that must be defeated much like how was described under indirect spells. The direct mana bolt spells would be tougher, but I would still apply a penalty in tis case just like I would for smoke.

And you can always cast at the obstacle or if you can see a portion of your target you can always target that part you see. I believe that is under the cover rules. As non living objects still block sight in astral form, you can't see the aura in astral if you can't see the person in physical.