The only reason that Radar and Ultrasound are not allowed is because that would break the game system. If it didn't break the system, then Catalyst would have allowed it. THAT is the only reason.

Tagz's description is what I like best. It has enough science to lend credence to it.

They can preform a 'called shot' to avoid the armor the barrier would provide, and as it would most likely be a surpise attack, the poor sucker on the receiving end would not have a dodge. So, no not really.

Right about what? I'm not attempting to argue raw at this point. I'm saying raw violates itself, and as such does not make a tremendous deal of sense.

Who exactly do you think you're responding to with this one? You quoted someone else, but seem to be trying to chew me out, and its got me rather confused.


It has some nice 'techno-babble' to it, I'll give you that, but there is nothing which was said that remotely describes any known biology about human eyesight, with the noted exception of the wavelengths of light our eyes detect. From there on in they may as well have been writing a startrek engineering script for all the technical accuracy it contained. A simple example would be that if your nerves fired fast enough to process a Thz they'd have to speed up by a factor of about several million. This I'm sure you would agree would have interesting metabolic consequences.

4 dice for 4 armor (for example) is not as good as 4 dice for 4 damage. Never has been. Also, IIRC, the shooter has to negate all armor or none. Not some of it.

Well unless I'm mistaken the rules do allow for you to shoot through a wall, and get a surpise gank on the guy on the other side. This could be done either by called shot to ignore armor, or called shot to increase damage, either way you can pretty much screw who ever it is on the other side. If you increase damage as you suggest, then it doesn't really solve the problem no does it?

"aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, called shot to his face" for + 6 damage, on a narrow burst from a compensated AR, so unless that wall is barrier 18 or higher, ie firing though a load bearing structural steel wall, you've actually come out ahead. If the wall is like that, then aim a bunch and do a called shot to avoid the armor depending on your weapon skill you might need to long shot it, but it certainly won't be impossible.

Take Aim maxes out at half your skill with the involved weapon. So six Take Aims with a 6 in automatics still only gives you +3 DP. Although, one of the extras is used for the called shot, I guess.

Pretty certain it's in the Corebook, if not it's in Arsenal.

~Umidori

Ahem.

Hey thanks, that's kind of you. But Mord is right that it doesn't hold up completely. Maybe better to say that magic only creates a link when vision is percieved in that range of visual light. I don't know. It is a fun creative exercise.

Also, for the record, I've been thinking of allowing a limited allowance of spell targeting via these methods (radar, UWB, ultrasound) anyhow. Not because of the way cybereyes or photons work, but by the way indirect spells work and how in comparison to how much better direct spells work.

If you know the invisible mage is directly between you and that dumpster, so why can't you just shoot a lightning bolt at the dumpster and hope to hit the mage? The rules say that the spells can effect things the caster cannot see if they are within the spells effected area. But then RAW (SR4A p204) also says that the indirect spell needs to connect to the end destination via the mystic link and will "fizzle" if it encounters something before that. That part just seems unnecessary. You already need a ranged combat test and a straight line targeting... why not allow it to hit things prior to the end destination? It even makes more fluff sense as well since the spell appears that lightning is arcing from you to the destination.

So I'm debating changing indirect spells and only indirect spells in my games so that the spell effect STARTS at the caster and ends when it encounters a barrier capable of stopping it, like the "fizzle" effect except that the spell isn't fizzling, it's "shooting through barriers" if it's high enough force. I don't think it would be broken since it would still require a straight line path, a ranged combat test, adding some armor, and any situational modifiers to that test. I just need to think of possible abuses before I allow it.

Tagz, indirect spells don't need a "link" like direct spells do. When you throw a lightning bolt, it travels directly from you to the target. That target can be living or non-living.

That is what makes lightning bolt so good against drones. It gives you the damage and electrical effects all in one nice package.