
The rules don't say anything to support that everything within the radius of the spell is affected. They do state that every "valid" target in the area is affected, but do not specifically define what constitutes a valid target for an area spell. They state that indirect area spells "may" affect everyone in the full radius, but do not agree with you that they "must" be affected.
Agreed. There is no absolute clarity on specifying these.
However, normal spellcasting rules dictate that in order for a target to be valid, it must be a) seen or touched b) exist in the dimension (physical or astral) that the spell is cast on and c) can't be an object if the spell is classified as M. I don't see any RAW reason to add more criteria to this, or use an entirely different set. Do note that the first condition here only applies to the initial targetting, as it is explicitly waived for the actual manifesting of the spell.
Also, the "may affect"!="will affect" problem casts some doubt, but is most simply answered by taking this to refer to the chance to 'dodge'. After all, anything a character tries to accomplish that's within the rules may happen, since chance includes a chance of failure.
There is also the fact that "may be affected" means the chance to affect the target is never negated altogether, as in that case it "may not be affected". Save explicit exceptions, of course.
These are of course partly assumptions we've made. We have indicated we have made these, and given our arguments as to why. We find these arguments grounded in either RAW, or a lack of RAW to provide the contrary, without sufficient reason to believe this contrary has been omited since it is implied.
The first way it implies this is by not explicitly stating the contrary. Filling the spaces behind barriers without breaching the barrier is both powerful and useful enough to suggest that some explicit attention be given to that scenario.
This entire discussion has basically been a big "this should have received attention", while it's of course unlikely to.
Given the assumption that any game designer worth his salt, assisted by some playtesters, should have seen this and given it the attention it was due. Since arguing on bases of RAW requires the correctness of RAW over everything, we are to assume it has.
There are however precedents for this kind of results in the rules on vehicle combat: If you fire one FA narrow burst at any vehicle, there's a good chance you'll kill any and all passengers. Yes, even a tank with 6 inch of steel plating. Yes, even a cruise liner with 2000 passengers. Yes, even yourself if you're on it. Therefore, I don't think effects on such a level resulting from simple actions could be used as an argument anywhere. 'Silly' rules exist. We can just accept them at face value, or houserule over them. A RAW discussion requires the first.
The second way it implies this is by conformity to conventional RPG wisdom.
I could refute that argument in multiple ways, let's pick a few:
Shadowrun 4A is a stand-alone rules system.
It needs no other books to understand all rules, nor does it need any prior knowledge other than a working knowledge of English and how to read it. The system acts on this. It provides all information necessary to adjucate any situation that arises. Any prior knowledge pertaining to similar experiences should be ignored while doing so. This holds especially true when comparing different editions of the same game, since they can overlap so much the differences won't stand out as much to scream "I'm different."
This is the premise of a stand-alone system.
If I go playing MAD with a lifetime of Monopoly behind me, without disregarding that and following every letter of its rules, I will not be playing MAD, and I will be losing.
Next, as long as a rule has been given for a situation, this rule should be implemented to its fullest extent, unless an exceptional case is specifically indicated. Since the rule that everything within F meters may be affected has been laid down, any exceptions to this would have to be explicitly named, not the other way around.
Also, general fantasy-rpg experience says magic can do strange things. If a spell says it creates a perfectly spherical globe of fire, without mentioning any regard for whatever's in that sphere, it's accepted to be so, because its magic, and it says so. If a spell says however that it creates an explosion, a rapidly expanding, physical damaging effect or something similar, general rpg experience still says that since it's magic, physics can be waived in the face of magic, but will still make it seem weird, and will often result in houserules. Tell me though: when is the last time you saw someone blasted out of a spell's area by a fireball in any game? Physics would say a powerful force that collides with obstacles rather than passing through them should do this. Yet it's almost always handwaved.
The third way it implies is this by conformity to previous editions of the game.
Yes, it does. See the first leg of my answer to your second way though. If anything holds true in 3rd edition, that should still hold true in 4th edition, it should be fully included in the 4th edition book. If it's not, no ammount of pointing to older books will make it so, especially since SR4 has rebuilt the rules from the ground up. And yes, this is a strange step away from established ways. Hence my answering Yerameyahu earlier in this thread that while we know that spell effects shouldn't pass barriers, the current RAW doesn't.
While you may decide that you will read the rules-as-written in such a way as to support the idea that AOE spells affect areas outside of a traditional view of line of effect, you are definitely in error to argue that the game mechanics as written support that view.
Likewise, you may decide that you want to use the rules in that same way, but you would be in error to argue that the game mechanics intend for you to do so.
Likewise, you may decide that you want to use the rules in that same way, but you would be in error to argue that the game mechanics intend for you to do so.
I still see the RAW supporting the view me and Irion have proponed as the only possible answer. For all reasons used to back it up.
I actually see the RAW explicitly forbidding a complete negation of the possibility to cause an effect on valid targets inside the spell range.
That this is not something the game intends for me to see, I understand. For the same reasons you understand them. I have never said I didn't, and have in fact said I normally houserule it much as most people in this thread would. I mostly don't like the break from continuity.
However, wether or not I or anyone else likes what RAW says. It says what it says. And no disliking it will change that. Since this agreement on what RAI should probably be has been established from the start, and multiple times along the way, what RAI is bears little to no meaning in this discussion.