This is a reading that most users of this board and most players do not share with you, sir. The key phrasing here - "all valid targets in the area" - is not widely accepted to mean "all targets, period". This is because if a spell manifested itself universally through all objects within a zone, there is no rational reason armor should apply *at all* to elemental AOE attacks, as the fire/lightning/whathaveyou would be manifesting under their clothes as equally as it did upon it. Additonally, if we are to treat these attacks as we would "ranged combat", logic dictates other ranged combat rules MUST apply, such as in the case of "blast through barriers" and "damaging occupants of a vehicle," et cetera. The call-out about possibly hitting targets the caster cannot see is explicitly to differentiate the spells from Direct Combat AOE spells, as referenced above. Note that it says "may affect", not "will affect".

@WyldKnight

Well, I looked at it and I saw: Somebody else already took it into account. So I thought, there would be no need to go over it again. Since I did not want to raise the impression, that I do not read what other people post and just reply to post directed at me. So I just thought to myself, mention you took notice and saw the answer in the thread.
But well, it seems it would have been better to quote it. Here you go:

Dopple post

Blasted lack of nesting quotes:

Yet another reason to properly ward tanks...crank up that effective OR.

We know this. RAW doesn't, which is all I've been saying. That, and I think this bears remembering in some cases, where the "total cover" isn't as clear cut. While being inside a bunker should completely stop the blast, it shouldn't do so if a nearby window is open. And with a 10 meter diameter for an F5 spell, "nearby gets a fairly wide definition, if you'll pardon the pun. While being behind a chest high wall of plascrete should by all means count as total cover for machine gun fire, I don't think it should in any way be a deteriment to aforementioned F5 Whateverball, which should wrap around it no problem.

This would be all well and good, if it wasn't totally hinging on RAI.

The quote you gave only mentions Partial or Good cover, which respectively mean a +2 and +4 modifier on the defense roll. Any other conclusions you draw from that are not supported by RAW.
You could apply the -6 Blind Fire penalty as well, on bases of being "completely obscured by cover", which shouldn't matter 1) due to the explicit exception of any perception applying from the spell's target point/object and 2) due to it not being a "positive cover modifier that the defender benefits from." (it's not positive, and the defender doesn't benefit from it, rather, it hinders the attacker).
Even if you do though, a -6 doesn't say "no attack possible". And even Blind Fire has a possibility of hitting.
Edit:
Interestingly, other modifiers that don't apply to the defense test include: wound modifiers, having defended against other attack modifiers, defender prone modifier and the -2 for defending against an attack while inside a vehicle. All because only positive modifiers are applied.

I have showed you something that shows otherwise in my previous post. I have even provided a possible valid reason a few posts back for this to apply in the case Shinobi brought up, beyond the "this is how RAW says it works. Why? Because it's Magic!" that really is all the necessary argument to apply to a purely RAW discussion.

Adarael:
A valid target for a spell constitutes target that shares physical or astral state with the caster, is in seen or touched by the caster, and in case of M spells, is a living target. Indirect Area Combat spells specificallyignore the second requirement to determine target validity as log as they are in the spell's AoE, which is nowehere stated to be limited by physical barriers.
Yes, armor applies. Why? Because RAW says so. Logic bears no relation to "resisted with Body + half Impact armor."
Also, because fluff says it creates an external damaging medium, so logic dictates armor should apply. This last bit lies outside the scope of a crunch discussion though.
In any case, one doesn't invalidate the other, as nowhere is it said that a Whateverball spreads Whatever out from the target spot to the edges of its area, rather, all valid targets are affected, without either fluff or crunch explanation as to how this takes form.

Oh, also:

Is yet another factor to take into account.
An F10 Whateverball will in most likelihood kill all occupants of a vehicle by RAW, same as a full-auto narrow burst, while leaving the vehicle mostly unharmed.

Another thing to note about that precious armor: if you're hit by a Fireball, your armor is just as much a valid target as you are. It might just desintegrate on you on a proper roll.

I do agree that, by the crazy AOE-vs.-vehicle rules, it's already a given that a fireball will affect all occupants. That's a terrible, stupid rule, but that's what we've got.

No, it's not.

Rules as Written, cover applies to spell defense tests.
Rules as Written, indirect combat spells function as ranged combat.


Now, until you can provide a RAW quote on how cover does not apply to ranged combat, you are wrong. Simple, right?



As for the specific instance of vehicles, you are correct. Not because of the magic rules, but because of the absolutely retarded vehicle combat rules.

I'm just totally going to cover this with any magical types before dice get anywhere near the table so I know they're not going to expect to be able to microwave tank crews just because. I shall term any attempt to do so "Brazilian Shenanigans" and impose an appropriate penalty.

I dig the rules and I understand the purpose of having rules. I get it that these rules have been playtested and everything, but...c'mon. Magic in my Shadowrun has rules and goddamnit, those rules are going to make sense. From where I'm sat, hitting the inside of a tank with no visual link or physical leak path is a no-no.

What happened to the old drop a Force 1 spirit inside and tell it to hold real still while you cast a little spell?

I think you are thinking of grounding a spell through an astral form, and 4th edition doesn't do that. But hey, even a Force 1 spirit inside the tank is really bad news for the crew. Especially fire...

I can totally see where you're coming from. You're choosing one interpretation of RAW over another. Ok, it's your game, no biggee. But the fact that you're choosing the interpretation that makes LESS sense is really mystifying. You're picking one little phrase "all valid targets are affected" to focus on and throwing anything else away that doesn't fit your viewpoint.

You're even blatantly admitting above that logic has NO bearing on your decision. How do you expect people to take your arguments seriously when you admit that your ideas are logic-free?

I'm... flattered???

I'm just looking at things from a purely RAW standpoint. Logic has no bearing there. Especially when discussing Magic.


I quote myself:

How am I saying cover does not apply? Raw is quite clear on that it does.

I have (I believe fairly exhaustively) listed the RAW effects of this statement. And yes, both reasons I've given for Blind fire not applying are arguing semantics. The first however, is explicitly mentioned to be true, while the second is admittedly nitpicking and might be read more permissively.
Even if you discount both of those, it's still just a -6 for the attacker. Nowhere is it said that total cover in any way prevents possibility of attack entirely.
That is what I'm saying.

What I'm also saying is that this line of reasoning:

Hinges on RAI entirely.
Let me go through it in steps:
The premise that: cover applies to the defense roll you make when being a valid target inside the range of an area, indirect damage combat spell, to avoid said spell affecting you. Supported by RAW in the passage Wyldknight himself quoted.
The conclusion that: Physical objects can stop such a spell from affecting someone. Yes, they can. (note that armor applying to the resistance test is a completely separate premise, which leads to the conclusion that physical objects can also prevent a spell that affects something from damaging it. Related, but not the same by far)

The following premise and conclusion combination though is purely the realm of RAI. That physical objects are sometimes able to stop a spell from affecting someone doesn't mean they always are, it also doesn't mean that the spell's effect can't "phase through objects". The only thing it means is that physical objects are sometimes able to stop a spell from affecting someone.
This is the same condition that applies when talking about the same "obstacles" and any ranged weapon. Can a plascrete wall stop a bullet from hitting someone behind it? Yes it can. Does it however make this impossible? No. The attacker simply rolls Intuition instead of Agility, and adds a -6 Blind Fire modifier. Can FFBA stop a bullet that hit from harming someone? Yes. Does it make prevent the passing of bullets altogether? No.

The entire question is a moot point though. RAW never mentions anything about a spell's effect needing to travel outward from the targetted point to any objects it is to affect, or about it being stopped completely by obstacles in its path if this were so (see above paragraph). This entire assumption is RAI, and breaks down fast even if I'm asking you. Surely, you don't let the pixie standing behind the troll go free? The subsequent addition by some that the barrier not applying if it gets destroyed by the same spell, while being a really logical step, and one I have really no objections to whatsoever, is nothing more than applying some of the normal blast rules to a spell, which is again RAI.
Again, I really see where you're coming from with this assumption, which as far as I'm concerned should have both fluff and crunch to back it up. The plain truth is though, that it has neither that I've seen.

The length and breadth of what RAW has to say is that everyone and everything within F meters of the target spot, that is a valid target for the spell (requiring sharing astral/physical state and being a living target if concerning an M spell, and explicitly not requiring LoS) and doesn't roll more successes on his resulting Reaction (+ Counterspelling) (+ any applicable positive modifiers) roll than the mage did on his Magic + Spellcasting (+ modifiers applicable to both spellcasting and ranged attacks)(chance for the spell to miss -> "may be affected by"), he subsequently gets a chance to resist F + (net hits) worth of appropriate damage.

The reading that the spell's area is "magically filled by some effect that in a split second causes Whatever damage on everything that could validly be targeted by the spell", is a description that far better describes the RAW effect. Even that is still a fluff description though, while RAW is what matters for where this discussion went.
Unless you houserule different. Which again, as I've said from the start, I can really get into. All I have been saying though, is that it's a houserule, based on RAI, and not in any case RAW.

Logic should have bearing, certainly. When you're trying to interpret the rules, which is what you, I, everyone is doing.

The rules aren't explicitly clear on whether everyone gets hit regardless of cover. You're choosing to interpret it that way. But with the overwhelming evidence that this is a physical effect, you're also choosing to ignore the logic that physical effects are stopped / influenced by things like cover. Your pixie example is especially bad.

Basically, when the rules aren't 100% crystal clear, and they pretty much never are, you have to use logic, or better termed "critical thinking". Just taking one small sentence or two completely out of context, like you're doing, results in nonsensical rulings.

Because that's what you're doing. You're running with the sentence(s) that fit your viewpoint, and ignoring other sentences, and the rest of the context.

Logic has a bearing when RAW fails to provide a clear answer. RAW provides a very clear cut answer here.

The rules are very clear on wether everyone gets hit, regardless of cover: Partial and Good cover apply, so if that +2 or +4 to your defense roll help you out enough to 'dodge' the spell', you didn't get hit, because of the cover. This means that yes, a Whateverball spell effect could be stopped from affecting someone or influenced otherwise (negating net hits, thus damage) by cover. It also means that no, in no case is it ever stopped outright, with no chance of affecting him altogether. There is no precedent for this in RAW whatsoever, outside of invalid (by plane, LoS, or mismatches between target and spell through being M or P type) spell targets. Since none of the invalid spell target conditions apply here, affecting a target shouldn't be prevented outright.

It being a physical effect means absolutely nothing. Not in this context. Outside of this context, it means that it cannot be cast on the astral, and can only be cast by physical subjects at physical subjects or objects. It again has no meaning whatsoever in this context of defining how a spell takes shape, or how it affects targets, beyond that what is stated in the Indirect Combat Spell passage on page 204 of SR4a. Any assumptions and conclusions you make beyond this are RAI, not RAW.

I'm not ignoring any sentences. If you could point me to any sentence I ignored, I'd be more than happy to have a look, but I'm fairly certain that I've by now gone over everything that applies pretty much twice, and chances of me having missed anything are fairly slim.
Thing is that often certain lines just don't say what people commonly think they do, and don't have near as wide reaching consequences. All of which cases where this has happend, I have answered them to the fullest extent possible, and still, the point expressed by RAW doesn't change.
I have posted complete sections of applicable rules, on several occasions, and based everything I've said on those. I might be "taking on a small sentence or two", or even a word or two, really, and showing what those words mean from as simple a standpoint as I can. I am not however twisting them in any way. I'm applying Ockham's razor, and using the quickest, and easiest way to interpret everything as it is written, while not losing any data that is provided in the process. Which everyone argueing RAW should do as much as possible.

What others, including you, are doing, is adding implications to rules, and making assumptions that realy don't exist in anything but RAI. Again, this is fine. It runs with how most of us consider this application of magic to work. While it is fine though, it is not RAW.

I don't think Ockham's razor means what you think it means. "Quickest" ? "Easiest" ? In fact, I would go so far as to say Occam's razor explicitly denies your interpretation.

I'll point some of your ignoring sentences out here, here, here, and here. You attempt to use "handwavium" to discount these points taken from the text, but that's all you're doing - applying your own interepretation.

But I can tell you've found THE ONE TRUE RULING OF RAW here, and won't be persuaded otherwise, so I'll just stop now. Brazilian Shenanigans !

@phlapjack77
First of all "Logic" is overrated anyway.
In school I often got from other students, that my explanations would not be logical, no matter they were physically correct. (As a matter of fact they were logical, of course, but "logical" is always used from a very subjectiv point of view.)

And to apply "logic" to Magic is more than silly. Magic contradicts by DEFINITION the laws of logic and nature.
So if you go on you end up with one truth:
The only thing you can turn to are the RULES and WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR GAME.
As a matter of fact the one has no bearing on the other.

Mardrax made it clear he is discussing the RULES.

By the rules it is debatable if armor from cover applys.
By the rules it is debatable if bonus to reaction from cover applys.
But by the rules it is not debatable, that you have to resist (or evade) no matter what. (As a matter of fact, even the evade part could be argued I think, but would not prove strong)

As a matter of fact hiding behind a paper wall would shield me from a fireball following your line of arguement. How is this more or less silly than spells tunneling through a tank?

You do know, you're basically saying even though many times people said you weren't being logical, you just ignored them because you knew you were right? This doesn't bode well...


Rules are not some god-given thing unto themselves. When we read them, and apply logic, then we're cooking with gas. We're not (trying to) apply logic to magic, we're applying logic to the rules in the book that talk about magic.


Mardrax made it clear he has his interpretation, but he wants it to be THE ONE TRUE RAW. Doesn't matter how badly he or you want it, doesn't make it true.


No, that explicitly isn't my line of argument at all. Please try to use some logic, here, even though I know you admitted you're not good at it above. Apply the barrier rules to the paper shield. Fireball blows away the paper shield, then you suffer the effects of the fireball. Being 3m underground in concrete, fireball isn't penetrating that (well, let's hope not).

Let me borrow a point from another thread, which makes my case for me far better than I do. Changes by me:

@phlapjack77

See, you start reading things which simply are not there. I never said we did not finish the argument, I never said I ignored them. The point I was making was supposed to be simple.
To say "this is not logical" is used as a synonym for "I do not like it" or "I do not understand what you are talking about".
Knowing this you can explain why (in my example) the laws of nature are as they are and why the experiment turned out the way it did.


Like I said, I find the word logic missused a lot. You for example do not apply logic to the rules. You look for a suitable outcome and interpret the rules to meet this end. This is exactly the other way round. Mardrax as a matter of fact is really applying logic to the rules. He looks what statements they give and he is following this path till he gets the answer he was looking for. (Well, I think he is not strict enough so)

Logic is very easy to use if you do not wish for a certain outcome or do not want to arguee a certain way. But (and this is a big BUT) logic is very "strong". Mostly to "strong" for the rules. Since it assumes the writers were able to do the same (and did so). Mostly they did not, because our every day language mostly does not follow the laws of logic.
(A good example is: Go to the supermarket and bring a bread. If they have any eggs, bring 6. So if you follow logic on this one, you would bring back 6 breads if the supermarket had any eggs.)
This is the hard part: You are not apply any hidden assumptions in logic. So any assumption has to be declared. And if we are talking about the rules, any assumption has to be made by the rules!
So logic is able to give you (very often) a SINGLE solution, you often do not want to apply it so.

So lets go:

Well this is the first part. The caster is hitting a designated area, from which he may see the center. So NO COVER and a simple success test.

We assumed free Line of Sight. So here are no Problems.

Well, since "Nothing" does not get to dodge or something. The spell effects apply. (And the poor Air burns)

Now what are the effects of area effect spells:

What is a valid target?
Well, as you see in the Core rules (Awakened World) a valid target for a indirect Area combat spell has to "Be on the same plane as the spell". More is not applyed.

So now we have to look up, what happens:

So you get your Body and half the impact armor to resist. The problem here is, the spell already hit the "target" and is now "affecting every valid target in area".
Because if you would dodge the spell you would not be affected, but since the rules stats, that you are affected you do not get to dodge. (Logic is fun)

Do you get armor bonus from beeing behind behind a barrier.
Lets consult the barrier rules for that. The only thing I am finding is "Shooting through barriers".

Well, but we are not shooting through a barrier. We could assume the fireball would have to. But as I am limited by the laws of logic, I do not get to "assume".
So no, you only apply the armor you are wearing+magic+natural+cyber/bio.


As I pointed out in the thread elemental aura would be applyed if you were looking at RAW only AND ASSUMING MAGICAL FINGERS IS A UNARMED ATTACK BY THE CHARACTER. The only reason Critical strike did not work (under this ruling) was, that the changed DV did not affect the DV of magical fingers.

It could also be argued non of them would apply because Magic fingers is not a unarmed attack by the character. As I pointed out, if you apply logic you do not get to assume, so this interpretation would be it.

Your problem is, that for barriers to have any affect, it would have to be said they do. (If you go strict by logic)
It is not stated anywhere, so they do not.

You make the the big mistake to confuse logical with resonable. This two words do not mean the same thing.
On the other hand, everything said, once does not have to be repeated to be true.


Oh, I think we had a misunderstanding before. I am quite good at logic and I really love logic thinking exercises. But, well you have seen in the post above...
Lets just say, logic is not good for the rules of an RPG. Reason is a much better consultant. (But you can't make any RAW arguments with him, thats the bad thing.)

And your problem is, that for barriers to have NO effect, it would have to be said they don't. Do you see? It says nothing either way, but leaves it a gray area.

So no, there is no RAW on this. I think

You miss a very important distinction here, though Irion. For anything on the other side of a Barrier to be affected BY ANYTHING, you must be able to penetrate the barrier. If you cannot penetrate the barrier, then you can not affect the individuals on the other side.

A Fireball MUST penetrate a barrier that it encounters, else it will not deal damage to the other side. If it can penetrate said barrier, then sure, the suckers on the other side of said barrier are in for a world of hurt. If not, then they are not. Elemental Effects still follow the laws of physics (Thus the term Elemental Effects. They are a real manifestation of energy that exists on the physical plane). If you wish to ignore said Laws, then use a Direct Damage Spell. At which point you cannot affect anyone that you cannot actually see.

@Irion: Thank you for pointing out something I have indeed missed. It seems the strictest reading of RAW might allow for only one defense test, by the target. The phrasing of "affect all valid targets" seems to reinforce that. The interpretation of "affecting" to mean they get to 'dodge' as well seems equally valid than interpreting it to mean they get to resist. When exactly the area effect kicks in is unclear, and I don't think there's a solid case to apply it before or after the reactive test.
I'd tend to go with having it kick in before reactive tests, interpreting "taking effect" meaning everyone in F meters gets to dodge. I'll immediately concede RAW isn't clear cut at all here though, so I am taking the weaker path of reason to deduce RAI here.

Again I repeat myself: RAW is entirely clear on when cover applies. Cover applies (as a +2 or +4 bonus) to the defensive roll a character makes against ranged attacks.. Since the opposed spellcasting test is handled "like a ranged combat attack" Cover applies to it. The page 183 rule is overruled, as for indirect combat spells, all ranged attack rules apply.
Everyone who gets a reactive roll against the spell enjoys cover benefits.

And again, I repeat myself: in no way does cover ever mean an attack can't be made at all.

@TJ: This is an assumption you're making. You're assuming that the spell effect needs to penetrate barriers. Apart from when travelling from caster to intended point of impact though, this is never mentioned. The entire "Fireball creates an explosion that starts where the spell is targetted, and travels F meters outward from there, and is stopped by physical barriers" liine of thought is an assumption that is wholly unsupported by RAW, even if it is derived from reason as applied to RAW.
The conclusion people reach that since armor counts in the resistance test, physical barriers stop the blast is a fallacy on two counts:
1) That half armor applies does not mean physical barriers do. All it means is that half armor applies.
2) It works from the assumption that there is a blast moving outward at all.
In the above, you can exchange "cover" for "armor" and "reactive" for "resistance", since that conclusion is equally invalid. Again, working purely from logic. Reason might indicate different, but that's not the point.

@phlapjack:
My interpretation does not hinge on the rules not forbidding anything. My interpretation hinges on the fact that rules never state anything about having to pass through barriers to begin with. In fact, about having to "pass" or "move" or "teleport" at all. Since the assumption that they do is one based wholly on RAI and nowhere on RAW. This is where I invoke Ockham's Razor and say you're basing a conclusion off an unnecessary assumption. Unnecessary because it is in no way required to adjucate how RAW works.

For you to say my discussion relies on handwavium to reach my conclusion is mostly ignorance, and I'll advise you to re-read what I've said in those instances, and to what point of what discussion it was contributing. I have relied on the letter of RAW sans assumptions where the topic of discussion required it, and where the letter of RAW allowed it, indicating where something was worded ambiguously to allow multiple interpretations.
That this thread started out on a question (that inquired to people's use of handwavium where RAW fails) wholly unrelated to the topic being discussed does not change or devaluate the topic or the arguments of current discussion.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

No, this is the point we are going over all the time. The crux is, that everything in a Force m Radius is affected. There is no limitation applied (And if you stick to a logical interpretation you can not argue with explosives or anything, because there is no referance).


If you put use a logical interpretation of the rules it does not have to. Surroundings are not taken into account to check who is affected and who is not.


Well, but you have no idea where it manifests. You assume they manifest in the middle and expand from there. But a matter of fact this is even contradicted by the damage code. (If you would start to apply the laws of physics or the laws of explosives found in SR. )
The interpretation (this is not a logical deduction) fitting the description best is, that the element is created everywhere in the area equally. Thus the equal damage at every point in the circle.


@phlapjack77

No. I told you before and I tell you again.
From a logic point of view standing behind a wall protects you as much as having a charisma of 6 or tits or wearing a beard (or to become more resonable: Why do not dwarfs take less damage, since they are smaler?) .
So why should I apply one of them and not all of them?



You go off the track by thinking it is more likely for a fireball to work like a granade then to just affect everything in the area.
It is not. Why should it be? And even to validate more likely you would have to start with fuzzy logic.
Like I said, this is the hardest part of making a logical argument. You have to name your assumptions and you are not allowed to bring some to the table without introducing them first. (Well, some I skipped because I am too lazzy. The once necessary to make sence of the letters written in the book at all, for example. As: The language we are writing in is english. The meaning of the words we are using is to be found in a english dictionary.)
If you would go with the assumption: "A fireball works like firing a bullet from the center of the Zone at everyone in the Zone", then your interpretation would be the logical conclusion of the rules and this assumption. But this assumption is very specific and not given anywhere. And it is not common ground, as far as I can tell.

I try not to use any assumption exept the ones needed in any case.

Oh ho! So you're admitting it's an interpretation. You're telling us what you think the RAI is, not the RAW. You can stop all the "this is RAW!" stuff now. Thanks for admitting it, finally

For all the arguing going on, you did make me laugh with your "charisma, tits, or beard" statement.

Back on track, what? You're saying standing behind a wall doesn't protect you? From what? I have no idea what you're saying here. I think you're trying to talk about the AoE thing, but the message is pretty garbled.

Neither is your "RAW" argument well-supported. All you can do is cite a lack of any rule specifically stating that a barrier would help. But why should it be stated explicitly? We already have barrier rules, we already have descriptions like "physical effect" and "external damaging medium", and we know how physical effects work. Why does armor resist? "Just because" isn't a good answer, btw.

No, we can rely on our critical thinking skills to realize that external damaging media work exactly as we would expect them to, unless the rules specifically say otherwise.

1) Any use of language depends on interpretation. Interpretation of language is commonly bound by commonly norms, accepted by all users of said language, usually to be found in a dictionary.

2) RAW is what "the books" say, as judged by these norms. RAW does not preclude interpretation. It is in fact dependant on it, as "the books" are written in English. See premise 1 for further information.

Assumptions that go beyond what "the books" say are not. Ditto for extrapolations. Ditto for "but this is what they meant to say. This is all RAI, as they require more interpretation than standard use of language would necessitate.

The assumption that the area indirect combat spells need a clear line of effect from their target spot, or center to any targets in their area in order to affect them is a RAI assumption.
The assumption that there is any movement involved whatsoever in the casting of such a spell, beyond the movement from caster to target is an RAI assumption.

Hence saying that being on the other side of a wall will prevent you from being affected by a Whateverball is a conclusion based on RAI, and hence, not RAW.

If anyone can provide a RAW clause to support this RAI assumption, that would change.

Nice play on words. Nice baiting. No go though.

We're not stating otherwise.

We're saying that the assumption you make of how the spell manifests isn't based on anything, and the way RAW says it's handled seems to support a description like "instantaneous, even distribution of Whatever throughout the area of effect", or to put in in "tablespeak": "everything within 5 meters of the garbage can gets engulfed by fire, as a huge fireball fills the area in an instant of roaring flame". Whereas your description would be along the lines of "a tiny bud of flame appears against the garbage can, quickly growing out to engulf the entire room in its inferno, up to 5 meters away."

Description is moot though, as RAW without assumed additions says every valid target within F meters may be affected. The normal way for physics to apply do so from then on. Armor and even cover applies. Things catch fire, freeze, what have you.
Why does cover apply? I don't have a clue. Because the writer says it does. Adhering to RAW means subjecting to that and needs no explanation.

We have barriers rules pertaining to shooting through barriers, and explosion rules like chunky salsa. Neither applies here. Cover does, but that's a completely different ballpark.
Ballgame? *sigh* Running into non-native language limitations.

@phlapjack77

Well, I know? So what?


You said, I should apply logic to the rules, after I told you it is mostly no good.
But I did it anyway.

My arguments are rock solid, since I got them through logical deduction. The only way to disprove them would to tell me where I took a wrong turn. Where I assumed anything not written in the book. Or ignored something written in the book.



Well, to but it simple: Standing behind a Wall does not protect you from anything, if not stated so. Because a wall has no meaning in the rules by itself.

As the rules go, the wall is only protecting you if somebody/somthing trying to hit you thought the wall. Since a fireball does not state to hit you through the wall, the wall is not protecting you.

Did I not make the assumption, that it does not have to hit through the wall?

I stated I would arguee RAW. There are a lot of hidden assumptions in there. One assumption I needed in this case (not included in this statement), you posted as common ground before.

If nothing is stated I have to conclude nothing happens.
If something is stated I have to conclude this something does happen. (This comes from "I am interpretating RAW")
As a matter of fact it is stated, that evey valid Target (defined as every target on the same plane) in the Force radius is affected by the spell. (This has to happen, because RAW says so)
Nothing else is mentioned, nothing else happens. (This was the point you made)


I only have to take into account what is written. On the other hand I am not allowed to add anything not written.
Since I must not assume, I do just as I am told in the text. The text does not tell me to check for barriers, so I do not. (The barrier rules do not state any rules for AOE spells, so I do not get to apply any general rule)


If you would just ask for my opinion I would tell you, that I think they just forget to mention it or thought it would not be necessary.


As you might have seen, this was a very simple logical deduction based (and this is the point I think you have problems to get) ONLY on RAW not on RAI.
As a matter of fact you got it wrong here too:

It is the other way round. He is looking only at RAW not at RAI, this is what he stated.

You on the other hand start from "Rules as they should be intended as far as I am concerned". So you start from the result and work your way down the rules to find an explanation. You may do this, but the thing is, you tend to drag your starting assumptions with you, which are not shared by everyone.

So, for you to agree that something is RAW, it has to be explicitely stated, each and every time? There are already rules in the books for Barriers, For Combat, For initiative, for Dodgeing, For resisting damage, etc, etc. Why should they have to repeat a rule to make it valid?

You are told that Elemental attacks cause a real, physical force to originate at a point in space (the center of the area of the spell), and that it is a physical effect. Cover applies (They only mention Parital and Good cover, because by the rules, any cover greater than good results in someone not being directly targetable). We know how a barrier reacts to damage, regardless of whether it is a Bullet, explosives, grenades, lightning, or even fire. These are already covered in other areas of the book.

So, when an elemental Spell takes effect, and you have someone who is completely protected by a Wall (your choice if I remember correctly) made of reinforced Concrete (or whatever the hell it is called these days), which has a definite amount of Barrier and Structural rating, YOU MUST take into account whether the spell can penetrate the barrier and cause daamge on the other side of it. Otherwise you get completely stupid results like a Fireball on one side of a Vault Door and all the cash on the other side being vaporized in a ball of flame. Which is completely Ludicrous... Please tell me that you do not truly believe that that is how the rules work for Elemental Spells...

Having waded through this entire tiresome argument, I agree firmly with phlapjack77 and Tymeaus. It seems like every discussion I've seen on DS lately that involves the terms RAW or RAI devolves into pointless bickering over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Also, Brazilian shenanigans!

Brashiliananigans.

Right. More iteration:

We are told so by you, and others, but not by RAW.
RAW states that after the spell construct reaches the designated point in space (which is resolved as a ranged atack so applicable modifiers apply), or an obstacle impeding it from getting there, the effect defined in the spell description manifests. The effect defined in the spell description states everything with F meters op the designated point gets a defensive roll, followed by a resistance roll if the caster has net successes left, followed by an ammount of damage and possible extra effects being inflicted.
Raw mentions none of this "originating" thing people keep bringing up. It just doesn't.
Yes, it's ugly. Yes, it probably should, but it doesn't.


No, you must not take this into account. RAW mentions nothing about anything passing through anything, or about anything "passing" at all, short of the spell construct travelling from the caster to the target. Anything beyond this is RAI. People reading more into things than exists, or making stuff up.
There is nothing conflicting inside of the rules or fluff for them to work as presented, so making assumptions like movement being necessary from a point of origin are superfluous and should be left out when discussing RAW. RAW works, so needs no alteration. You don't agree with how it works, so it does for you. However, this is imposing a baseless assumption.

Since it's magic, it can create an even distribution of a damaging effect through a perfectly spherical area, regardless of what's in it.
Since it's magic, it can flat out state that cover and half armor apply regardless of any qualifiers in the line above.

The common perception of how a fireball should work does not agree with this, but it can, and according to RAW, it does.

Is it ludicrous? Why? Because the general image of what happens does not agree with what RAW says happens? Because it doesn't take into accout mechanics that have been outlined for completely different events? While people may think of a Fireball as a kind of grenade, RAW says it's nothing like that, beyond being targetted, and affecting an area by damaging it. The how of it is completely different.

Of course, both me and Irion have readily admitted to this not being a very elegant ruling, that's completely worthy of houseruling otherwise. However, it being RAW is just undeniable, as long as you don't go inputting your own assumptions of how things should work.

This has been going on too long.

This is easy to resolve.

Indirect AoE spells require line of effect (line of sight, whatever) from their center. Invisible persons are subject to the effect even though they are unseen by the caster due to the nature of the spell (specific exemption).

Other wise you end up with things like this:



C = Caster
* = Spell center
# = Wall
T = Target

If LoS is determined from the caster's perspective, then the Target gets cover from the wall, despite having direct LoS to the center of the spell.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, though. The question is teleporting through walls, from the spell's 'point of view'.

I wouldn't argue it's an assumption from an unreasonable point of view, but it's completely baseless in RAW. Necessity of line of effect is not mentioned anywhere (in SR4a), necessity of LoS is only mentioned for targetting spells. Not in the slightest for area spells and the targets they affect from their target. LoS from the caster is in a prerequisite that is explicitly waived. The Blast Against Barriers rules have no bearing here since an Area spell is never defined as a blast.


While indeed having not much bearing on this discussion:
LoS from the caster by RAW has no bearing beyond targetting the spell.
However, I think using it to determine if cover should apply is a way of adjucating it that would make sense in some way if a Fireball creates an instantaneous, static damaging effect. Using LoS from the center would make much more sense wether seeing it as such or as a blast though IMHO.

Yes. And my point is, you have to determine LoS from somewhere to hit targets on "the other" side of the wall.

You can't start at the caster for indirect spells (direct are another matter entirely and for that I would determine from the caster, as they are direct) due to the above mentioned issue. Therefore you have to check from the spell's center, which forbids "teleporting through walls" due to the nature of the spell.

Namely:

Yes and no.
The question is not: "does the effect teleport through walls?" The question is: "is there any movement of any damaging effect at all?"

RAW mentions no such thing.
We do not need to make the assumption to let the system work as it stands.
Hence we do not make the assumption.
Hence the answer by RAW is no.

Our perceptions of what a fireball looks like, plus our perceptions of how it should work say there is.
Hence we make the assumption that it does.

Building from this:
Our perceptions of both indicate that the system is fundamentally flawed if it doesn't incorporate this.
Hence, we need to incorporate the assumption, and any logical conclusions this leads to into RAW.
Hence common RAI says "yes, and all that should entail."

Draco18s: That's the 'launch' bit, not the 'explosion' bit. I think that's been addressed a couple times.

Mardrax, it's just an expression. Teleportation doesn't exist in SR. Call the effect of spontaneously appearing whatever you want, it's still what we're talking about.

And yes, Yeremahu. I know it is. It's an expression that impliess certain connotations though. Mostly the point that people have focussed on that word in terms of "since it's a physical effect that conforms to laws of physics, it can't teleport." So I'm try to shift focus away from that word and replace it with something a bit more neutral.
Nothing meant to detract from your statement.

The phrasing SR4a pg 204 uses is "the effect ... manifests".

So, you are telling me, that if I have good cover from the center of the fireball I get a +4 to "dodge" it, but if I'm completely surrounded by concrete I, not only don't get the +4 to "dodge" it as I am even affected by the spell at all?

SHENANIGANS!!!

Brazilian ones, at that.

No one is saying that. Cover applies. If you are entitled to the cover bonus, you get it on your defensive roll, the way cover is always handled. While from what point this cover should be judged isn't too clear (since LoS from the caster is waived as a condition for anything but targetting the spell initially, and the spell effect itself doesn't really have anything to do with the "center" as a place of origin) being buried in concrete should count as cover by anyone's reckoning.
Where are you getting the idea that anyone ever said this wouldn't be so?

You are by RAW affected though, yes. You get to make your dodge roll like anyone else, is my interpretation anyway. RAW is ambiguous in this if you take a real strict reading like Irion has done. Everyone rolling defense against the same spellcasting roll would be the interpretation that gives least headaches and an as fair as possible result for all parties, IMHO. That bit is RAI on my side though. Feel free to go against it.

While the cover from the concrete gives you a better chance to 'dodge' the spell, being completely sealed off from the rest of the world makes no difference by RAW, as long as you're within F meters of the spell's target. There's only two things that can keep you from being affected if you are: being on a completely different plane of existence, or being in a background count higher than F.
And no, these two facts don't contradict eachother, as the reason for neither is explained.

Also, no need to shout. Even if you don't agree with a point that's argued. Call it shenanigans all you want. But know that all we're doing is advocating RAW. If anyone wants to diverge from that, it's their choice. I know I have, and will.

This is such a ludicrous argument that I cannot even reply.... I think that you are selectively ignoring whole sections of rules to make your point, as others have pointed out...

BRAZILIAN SHENANIGANS...

I'm not.
Since again the point is raised that I'm ignoring parts of the rules, and again nothing is explicified, I'll again iterate that I'd be happy to take a look at anything you think is being ignored, if you say what it is.
Since you haven't though, I'll just assume you're again referring to the rules on barriers, especially aspects of how they pertain to blasts.
As has been pointed out in both concise and elaborate fashions, with full backup of quoted applicable rules, through multiple arguments, those simply do not apply. Repeating the points is becoming tedious, so I'll just refer you to the last two pages of this thread, where this has been dealt with, the topmost post on this one would be a good place to start.

If you would care to support your position that they should with an argument that is not grounded in the baseless assumption that there is a movement of force or damaging effect from the spell area's center to its outer edges, you are totally welcome to.
As it stands though, RAW says the spell effect manifests evenly on every applicable target within F meters of the spell's target.

As all arguments I've seen so far been grounded in this assumption though, they aren't even wrong, they're simply invalid when discussing RAW.

If you would correct my assumption of what rules you're referring to, I'll gladly stand corrected, and again will gladly look at them.

Because I don't see it how it is possible for someone completely isolated from an outside enviroment can be affected at all by whatever is happening outside without this whatever don't break the thing isolating the person at first.
And saying it is magic doesn't cut here, because while we might call it magic, the hermetics call it taumaturgy or something similar and believe that magic is just another aspect of nature that can be easily explained by the scientific method. And as far as I know, while magic (mana) does create a spherical igneous ball with a temperature of at least 1370K at coordinates X, Y and Z designated by its caster's will that's all it does. After the fireball has been created, all the natural laws of physics apply and the natural laws of physics says that fire can't phase through concrete.

No one is saying that they don't apply. No one is saying that it can phase through anything. No one is saying that it does.
RAW is saying this ball of fire is created to exact dimensions (a perfect sphere, with a radius of F), regardless of what's in those dimensions.



No one^x is talking about phasing or moving or blasting or teleporting or passing or sifting or any other synonym that implies anything about movement, let alone through or past anything.
Because RAW gives no bases to do so, since the ball is created evenly, and regardless to obstructions. Laws of physics apply from the moment the spell's effects have manifested. This manifesting is magic, which indeed defers to rules, namely to the rules as described in RAW. These rules state every valid target may be affected.

^xNo one who says the spell would affect you, according to RAW, even if you're buried in concrete. That is mainly Irion and me.
And we're saying that while you are, you shouldn't be. If you want to discuss RAW. Because again, RAW doesn't mention anything about this, and doesn't even mention anything that might imply something of the sort. What it does mention is that all valid targets within the area are affected.
Everything that does imply movement is the collective concept of "fireball" people seem to have. Mental pictures have no place in RAW though.
We have iterated this multiple times.

Also, you didn't reply to the question or anything else you quoted, but meh.

So if it forms inside the hollow concrete cube, then it forms inside a person's lungs.

Q.E.D.

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.

Without making additional assumptions, you may conclude that the rules do not explicitly support the case of indirect spells affecting things on the other side of a barrier but within the area of effect and that they also do not explicitly support the case of the indirect spells' area of effect being stopped by the barrier to the limit of the barrier's ability to resist.

There is no conclusive answer if you only want to read the three or four short sentences that govern indirect AOE spells.

However, it is heavily implied that it is the case that barriers interfere with the area of effect.

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.

The second way it implies this is by conformity to conventional RPG wisdom. If this is a defining point that's intended to be different from every single other RPG in existence, not bothering to mention that specific and unique difference and instead leaving it up to the various player groups to figure out for themselves <edit here, forgot to come back to this point> would be unnecessarily confusing if it were the explicit intent to contradict most commonly-held norms of RPGs.

The third way it implies is this by conformity to previous editions of the game. In the previous edition, all of the Elemental Manipulation area spells acted "in the same way as a physical explosion or grenade." Non-elemental AOE spells acted as Direct spells do in 4th edition. Changing the way this works would constitute a major change to the way the world of the game operates, and you would expect that sort of major change to be mentioned somewhere.

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.

tl;dr -- the argument is specious.

You mean, your interpretation of RAW is this, right? Otherwise, can you give me a page number to find your exact quote above?

And don't find something that's similarly worded. Give an exact quote that matches exactly what you said above.

Now for something a bit different, what happens if there is an astral barrier between the target and the impact point of the spell ?

Let me pose this hypotetical situation : we are on a parking lot, there is guy A one meter inside a Force 7 spherical Mana Barrier spell, guy B standing 1 meter outside of the barrier. A mage Coutside casts a Force 4, 4-meter radius Fireball spell.

The rules tells us that the spell fizzles if it hit an astral barrier it cannot beat, so targeting guy A is a bad idea. Now suppose the mage target guys B, outside of the barrier. What happens ?

1- since the barrier is intersecting the AoE of the spell, it need to defeatit in order to have any effect at all, if it does not A AND B are safe ?

2- since the spell does not collide with the barrier before hitting it's intended target, it works normally and affects everyone in a 5 meter radius - B is fried (OK), but A too (weird) ?

3- B is affected normally, but the spell need to defat the magical barrier, otherwise A is unscathed ?

4- something else ?

Just because he stated it, doesn't make it true.


You seem to be in disagreement with yourself, as shown here and here and here.