Wait vans become the best cannon ever. As the DV inside that van would be at least 144 as sated above openign the doors will redmist most people. Thats one nice booby trap.

Hehe. It's not a '144 DV blast' inside the van. It's a total blast exposure to a target over time adding up to 144. Except it's not, see above.

I know how it works and yes it would be slightly less that 144 as we would lose a wall. How ever you set ti the set off the flasgbang as the doors opend you will still kill those who trip in.

I think you'd get, at most, 6 from the direct blast, and then 4 or 5 (maybe the full six, depending on how you accept the 'uniform blast across 10m') from the opposite rebounding blast. So, yes, 'slightly less'.

Two sets of doors then or just a shit load of flash bangs. The fact they cant hurt the van is key.

Oh oh! You're talking about the discrepancy between barrier rules and vehicle armor rules! Now I understand. Yes, the super-abusive flashbang trick *would* work *inside* a closed vehicle even though it wouldn't work in a closed non-vehicle. Broken-by-design.

Force 1 Physical Barrier does not survive "Blast Against Barriers" hence no "Blast In A Confined Space".

A Force 7 Physical Barrier on the otherhand. That came up recently in a game I played...that and hydrostatic shock. In the same scene. In the same grenade throw.

I wish Shadowrun realistically modeled hydrostatic shock or took it into account at all. (If you are in swimming pool, grenade is in swimming pool, regardless of size of pool (within reason) or relative position of you and grenade, you = chunky salsa. At least that's my understanding of how it works in real life.)

'Hydrostatic shock' is (I think) more commonly used to refer to an effect of bullets on the human (animal) body. AFAIK it's not modeled in SR either.

They do, sorta.



Not sure how well it reflects reality but they considered it at least.

Broken Rules:

All spells are subject to Object Resistance.

Indirect Combat spells are Opposed Tests.

There are no rules for how to resolve tests that are both Opposed and Threshold.

Using the formula here http://www.scuba-doc.com/uwblast.html

Pressure (lb/in2) = 13000x charge size (lb)1/3 divided by Distance from the charge (feet) (3ft=1m)
2000 lb/in2 = 909 kg will cause death
500 lb/in2 = 227 kg will cause serious injury or death.

A ½lbs hand grenade would kill a bit over 1 feet away and the "serious injury or death" distance is less than 4½ feet according to that. Strangely, the text (perhaps anecdotely?) describes a hand grenade killing 5 meters away underwater.

A grenade thrown into water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68vc3Lv7d6c . Doesn't look that impressive.

I think the effects of underwater grenades are exaggareted. Does anyone have hard or experimental data that suggests otherwise?

It would work in a non-closed vehicle. It would just not be as... lethal. Since the exterior of the vehicle would contain the blast, it would all be channeled out whichever door was opened. So let's say the target vehicle is a van with nothing in the rear. Two flashbangs are mounted on the back of the driver and passenger side seats. They are rigged to trigger if the rear doors open. If we consider just the six cardinal directions, then only two directions of the blast will strike the person opening the door (vans are NOT going to be 7+ meters long). Shadowrun is a a 3 dimensional space so the reality is that some of the blast will be bounced up/down across the floor, roof, and sides of the van before being expelled. By the rules, there would be at least ten different blast waves just by adding in the angles between the 6 cardinals.

I believe there are a couple of unspoken rules covering that discrepancy...

Namely, the specific overrides the general and the rule about living objects resist spells normally therefore do not get an object resistance test.

Stated another way, living objects (people, animals, etc) having an Object Resistance of 0.

That doesn't really answer the situation of casting a lighting bolt at a drone, but i prefer the assumption that indirect combat spells dont care about OR as they create real lighting/fire/acid/elemental effects.

If you want to be mean, When casting lightning bolt at a drone.
You make an opposed test, where you need threshold net hits to actually successfully hit the drone AND do damage.

Mäx is right, there's no OR threshold because the spell creates a real effect. There's even an example in the book where a drone (OR 5+) gets hit by a Flamethrower spell with 3 hits.

StealthSigma: yes, but you still have to be *in* the vehicle, which is what I meant. You're right, I misspoke about 'closed'.

No you don't. You just have to be in range of any of the bouncing effects assuming the vehicle is enough to cause bounce.




This is the scenario in question. X's represent the sides of the van, o's represent the two booby trapped flashbangs. |'s represent the rear doors to the van that are booby trapped. A lot of the blast will bounce back and force on the inside, but a lot of the blast will also bounce out the rear doors before traveling 10 meters. Functionally, the van's sides tamp the flashbangs in order to redirect as much of the blast as possible out the rear of the van. Whoever opens the van door is in for a very nasty surprise, as is anyone that is 2 or 3 meters of the door.

It depends on how the game counts 'blast shaping'. I thought that it only counted 'linear' incidence: direct, and reflection along that same axis only. There is no redirection ('turning'), only reflection (on the same axis).

That's why someone in the car gets hit by reflections on three axes (including re-reflections), while outside only takes 1 axis of hits (1 direct blast, and 1 reflection off the opposite wall). Obvious, that's not how physics works, but…

Even if you rule that blast can be shunted into different directions, that means it's *not* doing the 'hall of mirrors' trick anymore. At worst, then, someone opening a metal box with a flashbang in it would take 6x the blast (1 direct, 1 reflection, and 4 'redirects'); this is still a far cry from the person inside a vehicle, who takes the billion-percent multireflect damage discussed earlier in this thread. See?

Which is what I was saying I've not done the math but I think 10-20 stun maybe more is likely per flashbang.

The problem. If we go directly by the rules.....

We have two guys in a room and a flashbang goes off at the feet of guy #1.



According to this diagram and what you're saying. Guy #2 (despite being less than a meter away) is going to take significantly less damage than Guy #1.

You don't have to tell me. I know it doesn't make sense, but we're talking about the rules.

That is how it was intended to function - even (unnecessarily) clarified as such by one of the developers on these forums; forget who at the moment.

That is not how it actually works, by Rules as Written.




RAW states that spells are subject to Object Resistance (where applicable - aka affecting objects), and exceptions are possible.

It does not, however, provide any such exception, making every single spell targeted against an object subject to OR - including Indirect Combat.



This is a thread about broken rules - this is among the top 3 most broken in the game, as the game does not provide rules for resolving an opposed Threshold test as I stated previously, nor does it forbid such tests from happening.






Side note: My House Errata specifically states Indirect Combat and Environmental Manipulation spells are not subject to Object Resistance, and provides rules for resolving an opposed Threshold test.

Muspellheimr, read pg 204, SR4A, and the example - a few snippets:




I really don't see how you can interpret that as Indirect Combat has beat Object Resistance.

An example is quite different from the actual rules.

Examples have been incorrect in the past.
Examples are meant to provide an illustration of how the rules work, not provide those rules.
Examples show how the rule was intended to work, not how the rule actually does work (or in this case, doesn't).

How the hell do you use an indirect spell on an an astrally active target that isn't physically solid?

It's magic.

Wait, i thought only mana spells were able to affect astral targets?

*shrug* Yes, it would flatly contradict the 'Physical spells can't target astral forms' rule. Are you surprised that the rules are messy?

I didn't just quote the example, I also quoted the rules, and they say the exact same thing - that it is resolved like ranged combat etc.

You're really stretching on this one. Where are you reading that OR is involved in Indirect Combat spells?

Sounds like RAW is that you can cast Fireballs at astral targets - you'll get a Fireball centered on the target, but it obviously won't affect the target since it is on the astral. Airburst Fireballs by sending a spirit to hover over your enemies' cover?

Spells are not resisted by non-living objects. Instead, they have a Threshold equal to Object Resistance. Exception: Indirect Combat spells allow for a damage resistance test.
Indirect Combat spells are treated as a ranged attack. Explanation: They allow a Defense test, followed by a Damage Resistance test.

"Some spells" and "may be" are the only listed exceptions to Object Resistance - This allows that [Undefined] spells have the possibility to be exempt from Object Resistance.
While such exceptions are implied in the case of Indirect Combat and most Physical Manipulation spells, no exception is actually made.

Indirect Combat spells are treated as a ranged attack, and thus function as an Opposed test.
Opposed tests are not listed as being exclusive from Threshold tests.
Indirect Combat spells are not listed as an exception to Object Resistance.
Indirect Combat spells thus are both an Opposed test and a Threshold test.

Thus, we now know that Opposed and Threshold tests are compatible, and there is at least one instance (Rules as Written) where both are used to determine the result. However, no rules for how they actually interact with each other are provided, and thus we have a Broken Rule - the subject of this thread.



I should also mention that with Object Resistance, some spells (such as Levitate) have multiple, usually different, Thresholds - again with no explanation on how tests made against multiple thresholds function.


In these instances, it is generally very easy to tell how the rules where intended to function - so much so that most people don't even notice how they actually do function. Regardless, that does not make the intent RAW.

I don't feel an example is needed. In reality an opposed test is a threshold + opposed test when you think about it. Your threshold is 1 + opposed hits. You must score at least that many hits to succeed. In this case the test would be OR + opposed hits. How is this really any different?

The "note that" refers to the part about not getting a resistance test, which Indirect Combat spells do, and it is there to clear up any confusion in case people mistakenly thinks that the spell targets an object - it doesn't.

Indirect Combat spells produce an effect like flame - the flame can then damage humans or objects alike. That's why they're called Indirect. The real problem is you misunderstood how Indirect Combat spells work. How do you explain a Fireball hitting a drone out of LOS of the caster if you think the spells are cast directly on what is damaged by the spell?

Even if you're still in doubt, on page 204, it is clearly described how they work. They don't get OR - the spell categories preface mentions when OR applies, and for Indirect it isn't there.

Tl;dr a drone is not, for rules purposes, an object. An object is inanimate and defenseless.

Except that Drones and vehicles are both on the "Object Resistance Table"
Drones have an ORR of 5 and vehicles of 6+

Oh rules so many contradictions so little time.

For the firing a bow/crossbow question, we simply have to go back to previous edition common sense.

Firing a bow or a crossbow in previous editions was a SS action.. Meaning, that a bow or crossbow shoots a single shot. Ready weapon is a simple action.


A bow fires like this: Ready Action -> Shoot bow -> reload (Ready weapon) -> Shoot Bow

A crossbow follows the same pattern.

This is simple and you are really thinking about it too much. Just because something is not said does not mean it can not be gleaned from teh rules.

Double post

NOT THE POINT.

The rule, as written, does not function.

"Common Sense", "Reasonable Interpretation", etc. are all irrelevant.


The entire purpose of this thread is to identify rules that do not work as written, such as firing a bow, spirit Materialization/Possession, or Indirect Combat spells targeted against non-living objects.

Oh.

Your problem is often you don't read the rules as written - you twist the meaning of different passages in different directions to engineer contradictions.

Indirect Combat spells have very clear explanations of what they do and how they work. They create a physical effect, which then may or may not hit something - I can see that you just skipped my question on how you explain a Fireball hitting a target out of LOS, which would obviously be impossible under your personal non-RAW interpretation of how Indirect Combat spells work.

Materialization clearly states that it allows astral critters to project into the material world. That's RAW. Sure, physical powers can't generally be used on the astral, but in this case it is very clearly spelled out what the power does and how it works - obviously it is an exception.

I'm trying to imagine a rule book written like it would have to be to satisfy you - ever rule would have to say "except where specifically noted otherwise", and all exceptions would have to carry a note "this is an exception to the general rule". Really, that isn't necessary. If it says that physical powers can't be used from astral, and then a physical power then describes how it works from the astral, it is written that this power works differently from others. It doesn't have to say "this is an exception" - when you write that, that is as a service to the reader in cases where the writer thought it could otherwise lead to misunderstandings.

again, you're missing the entire basis of this thread.

this thread is a collecting place for rules that are badly written. if you need to apply common sense house rules to make the rule work the way it is supposed to work, then it should be immediately obvious that the rule minus the common sense house rule is badly written.

so yes, you can present solutions that describe how to house rule things to work the way they were (probably) intended to work, but in doing so you are merely proving the point that the rule is badly written in the first place. if you wish to prove that a given rule does not belong in this thread, you need to show that the actual rules tell you to do things that are not in need of common sense house rules. if following the rules the way they are written leads to nonsensical results, then we can conclude that the rule belongs here, in this thread set up for rules that don't work right.

Seems pretty clear that Smokeskin was in fact using the rulebook, and not presenting house rules.

Not saying he's right or wrong, only that he's been able to quote the rulebook just as much as t'others.

I think.

No. I read the rules. I specifically search out for passages I may have missed that are contrary to my conclusion. And I do not ever 'twist' the meaning.

What I do is present the Rules as Written in their literal meaning, typically with the intent of drawing attention to a poorly written rule in the vain hopes that it will actually be changed via Errata. Such poorly written rules just happen to be the topic of this thread.


And in the literal reading of RAW, as I have stated multiple times now, Indirect Combat spells are in fact subject to Object Resistance.

Yet again, the rules state that spells are subject to OR.
There are no specific exceptions made for any single category, sub-category, or spell.
Allowing a Defense test does not provide an exception, as it is not mutually exclusive from a Threshold test.

The example given in the book clearly illustrates how the rule is in intended to function. It does not illustrate how the rule does function as written.

I've never played Shadowrun aside from 4th Edition. Your explanation does not work on me.

For the Bow:
Ready Weapon action to knock arrow and pull line, then hold, then free action:"Let go of the string and watch the arrow pierce the heavens!"

Translate that from troll to human.

He also forgot to aim.

And that wasn't even related to any rules at all in the book
This thread isn't about how it works in real life, or how we think it should work, but how the book says (or in the case of bows, doesn't) it should work.

A large part of the problems with SR4/A RAW is the automatic assumption that people have played earlier editions. Truthfully, look at the number of times we have to use 'common sense' with RAW. In the end, while SR4/A is a quality product, it makes some really inane assumptions.

Re-reading some of the pages quoted has left me scratching my head trying to figure out how to play SR4/A exactly as written. Some of the rules have major holes in them that are only filled if we refer to earlier edition rules.

Note I am NOT intending this as a slam against those responsible for writing SR4/A, just an observation of the result, not the intent.

Makes me wonder just how well a fan-driven re-write of the SR4/A rules would go over... and by rewrite, I mean fans going over the sections and clearing up all ambiguity and previous edition referencing.