I've always read that if you can delegate a service of a Registered Sprite that the sprite will do things for the 'master' designated. Since its been challenged I'd like to know for sure how this is handled in Missions.

Thanks!

I know your looking for Bull's answer not mine but just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my hat I went and reread all the relevant sections on sprites and also the areas on spirits for comparison. Every power has it's targeting requirements laid out in the text those that allow the powers to be used on others (or even flat out point out that they can be used by non technos) say so. Nothing about loaning sprite or spirit services is detailed to change this wording. I'm sorry if your not happy with this interpretation but it is fairly cut and dry.

This is more a general FAQ thing than a Missions thing. Lemme poke Aaron or Caine or somebody that actually understands the TM rules a bit better than me

Bull

This thread may be useful.
Combat Turns #8 and 9 in particular.

Just because the authors never read the rules, does not in fact change the rules.

Just as a note, my off the cuff answer is "I don't see why not". With a few exceptions, Spirtes are generally identical to Spirits, and you can have a Spirit use it's powers on an ally (Magical guard, etc). I don't see why this would be much different.

I will, however, keep asking around and see if I can come up with a more suitable answer. The argument against is, IMO, flawed because you're arguing based on semantics and almost entirely on a single line of text and how it's worded. That works for a CCG (Well do I remember arguments in Magic over exactly how some of the cards worked, especially in the Unlimited days before they started codifying their rules better), but an RPG is always a bit more loosely defined. Intent is more important than semantics.

This doesn't mean the argument against is wrong. Just saying it's not as strong as it could be to anyone but a pure rules lawyer.

Bull

Errrr ok then, why can't spirits grant their immunity to normal weapons to people? Why can't you use mana spells on purely physical targets? Because the targets for the action are specifically laid out int he rules. This power specifically lays it out to target technomancers. Lets compare it with some other language for sprite powers.


Similar deal, if we open this up to the "words are just words" interpretation vs the "words are rules" inteprtation tank sprites (and spirits for that matter) should be able to pass on the hardening or immunity to normal weapons powers on to casters (which they can do through possession but that's a completely different ball of wax and a small part of why possesion is silly)

Basically yes you can designate your sprite to perform services for another person and they will do so to the best of their ability, this particular power can only be used to transfer damage from technomancers nothing in the rules change that. Just for comparison's sake lets look at a power that they explicitly mentioned could apply to others.



Here we have another power from the same section where the targeting parameters are specifically left very wide. I must conclude that there is a reason for this and a reason for castling to be very specific. I love TM's as much as the next guy but castling is already prone to abuse and funny interpretations without loaning out paladin sprite bodyguards to every matrix user beyond their original scope.

This is a poor example.

Castling has an effect that specifically targets it's Compiler. The Hardened Armor power does not target anyone else, it's an innate ability of the Sprite/Spirit.

If the Sprite can use the service on it's Compiler, it should be able to use the power on any ally, the same way a Spirit can use Guard or Magical Guard or Movement. Assuming, of course, that the target is active in the matrix. Obviously, Castling would be useless on a Mage with no matrix connection.

My point about te wording was not to get caught up in the fact that it specifically says "Technomancer".



Not everything is written well, and not everything is written in a way that describes it's intent. I also don't see Castling as being all that abusive, since so little happens in the matrix, and so few characters actually interact with it in a meaningful way, allowing the Hacker/TM to do most of the heavy lifting.

(This is also why I'm honestly not a huge fan of Technomancers. They're incredibly wonky and not really well thought out. I'm also not a huge fan of a lot of SR4's Matrix rules. The base concept of AR is sound, but the rules themselves are seriously kludged together, and Unwired built upon a very shaky foundation, since it wasn't designed to rewrite the core mechanics any).

ANyway, like I said above, this isn't a ruling, just my off the cuff answer. I could be wrong.

To me that's why this issue is over in one. One can claim it's writtne poorly, but I actually see written explicitly.



Except every one of those powers listed wording specifically lays out how broad the targeting base can be, and in some cases how many the targeting can be.


Which again gets back to well if we're not going to get caught up in words like "its' or any other words that might apply to powers. Why shouldn't everything be available, after all those things might be suggestions or poorly worded too.


One could make the argument that it is not written well certainly, hell I'd make the argument! While I like the SR4 matrix rules and what they did to streamline things my issue is this: As a home GM i can run things any way I want no problem, as a missions GM I have to run things by the book because once we start rewriting things to how we think they should be well end up with a 20-page change document and still not everyone happy. The rules as written say that this power can only be used on technomancers. I can only guess at intent but even that points to technomancers as there's sprite powers in the same section that use wording that would conform to this reading.