4 Dice (Threshold 2) is not likely at all. And, If the Vehicle is warded, the Spirit may never penetrate the ward.

It does when you have a Threshold of 1 and your hot sim driving gives you a -1 to all Thresholds on driving tests - it means "You automatically succeed." Otherwise hot sim does nothing for basic driving.

Threshold 1 or 0. Vehicle tests for Average or Easy terrain are Threshold +1 or +2, respectively, with a -1 to the Threshold difficulty when piloting in hot sim. You may be thinking of the Threshold 3 Crash test induced by damage equal to or over the body of the vehicle? But an "out of nowhere" crash test is likely going to be based entirely on the terrain, since it's not a specific manouver and it's just a test against the terrain itself not to crash.

Crash Tests are ALWAYS Threshold 3. So, again, 4 Dice (Threshold 2) for that Rigger with the Rig we were talkkking about to not Crash. The rolls leading up to the Crash test may bepend on other variables, but the Crash Test is always Threshold 3.

Perception checks can only be made when you can percieve something because it's in sensory range. If a spell of Force 6 is cast and you have line of sight to the caster, yes, you do not need to roll perception to see it UNLESS there are somehow some extenuating circumstances which increase the threshold.

Crash Tests are ALWAYS Threshold 3. So, again, 4 Dice (Threshold 2) for that Rigger with the Rig we were talkkking about to not Crash. The rolls leading up to the Crash test may bepend on other variables, but the Crash Test is always Threshold 3.

Just like Knockdown, if a vehicle takes more damage from a single attack than it has Body, then the driver must make an immediate Vehicle skill + Reaction (3) Test to avoid crashing.

Whoever said the Perception test in question was a (purely) visual one, or that it requires LoS? Who defined whatever 7th sense picks the casting up, let alone its range?
And even if it were a visual one, it means said dog could see the casting from the moon, as long as there was no cloud cover.

False, see Ramming (SR4A pg 169).
Also, the closest reference I could find to the Threshold 3 is under Vehicle Damage:

Notes this only applies when the vehicle threatens to crash from taking damage.

It's not clear to me that the -1 Threshold effect reduces Threshold 1 to 'Threshold 0'. I don't know if/how that exists, nor if you can reduce below 1.

There are distance penalties for Perception, though not very good ones. :/ Presumably, the GM is supposed to know that there's a max range on some things.

I provided line of sight as an example. Maybe you have line of smell, I don't know.

You are steering this conversation into retardedville. By the rules, I can roll a perception test and - with enough hits - sense anything, anywhere, because there are no sensory limits on what a Perception test can pick up. See, the chart gives a difficulty for hearing subvocal speech, but no indication of how far away I can make that roll. So obviously, 10 miles is fair, because there's no range penalty listed.

You do know that the Accident Power works without the Spirit entering a Vehicle, Right? And the theoretical Ward inside does bupkiss. :P

thank you for the many opinions here; they are pretty much what we surmised in our debate. We both agree that the ward can be made in the vehicle but the key to our issue was the location of the warding (ie is it anchored inside the vehicle etc or would the spirit have to act through the ward if its a field around the vehicle). We decided the spirit could act without dealing with the ward because wards would want to be constructed the easiest way possible ie the interior of the vehicle is much less likely to change its shape/ disposition (think ramming or weapon damage) than the inside of the vehicle would (ala the placement off the widget etc).

Remember that Wards are like walls. More than that, they are like air tight walls that go all around something. That's fine for a computer server or something else that doesn't have to get moved, but you'd never put one around anything that something magical might have to go through legitimately.

So you're not usually going to see a ward around a citymaster, because sometimes Ares likes to send spirits in to provide Movement and Guard, and having some third party wage mage put up a ward would keep that spirit from using it.

No it's not. What makes the ward sometimes move with its anchor, sometimes not?

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

A ward's frame of reference is not the "largest physical object" that the ward can encompass, but rather its relation with its anchor when the ward is raised (note the anchor must be inside the ward).

A ward must maintain its relative frame of reference with regards to its anchor (though that anchor may move around as long as the ward retains its shape). For instance: I want to ward a room. I tell the gamemaster that I want the ward to conform to the walls of the room (although I could tell him I want the ward to conform to a 5m³ of empty air in the middle of the room). I use the aforementioned rock/a magic circle/a series of candles in the center of the ward as the anchor. Once the ward is created, that relative frame of reference (with regards to the anchor) cannot be changed without disrupting the ward. Hence if the rock/circle/candles are kicked away, the ward is disrupted because the walls remain where they were and the anchor moves.

Were the walls able to move and maintain the same frame of reference with the moving rock/circle/candle (such as in the case of a container) then the ward would not collapse (and yes, this works much the same when warding in the open air though there the ground poses a problem, the anchor must be a meter off the ground if you stick to the rules literally). Hence you can ward a container or a car as long as the anchor remains static with regards to the ward. If the anchor moves the limits of the ward must be able to move with it.

The thing to grasp is that a ward's frame of reference is internal. What matters is that it remains at the same relative distance it was originally raised at with regards to its physical anchor (which must be inside it - see your quote below).

If the warded perimeter conforms to a physical reference (such as the walls of a building or the chassis of a van) and that physical reference is destroyed or seriously damaged then the ward collapses.

You might ask then why ever use a physical reference for the limits of a ward (ie. why not just ward a dome of "empty" space inside a room rather than its walls). Well, the best reason to do this is to hide it. If the ward conforms to the walls, the astral shadow of the physical wall hides the limits of the ward, this is convenient in a number of ways not least of which is to avoid people peeking in from "unwarded" corners of a room or vehicle.

During development we did discuss whether or not all wards should be limited to enclosed areas - but it was decided not to go with that option.

Yes, the ward has moved and it has moved on the astral, this does not contradict the fact that it is not astrally portable. I believe that what we have here is a simply a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "portable."

It's physical form is portable, its astral form is not. Portable means that something "can be carried, transported or conveyed; easily transported by hand." (Webster's).

Nothing that I've said contradicts the fact that wards cannot be carried, transported or conveyed on the astral plane (hence "wards are not portable astral constructs" like say a focus. Wards can move however - if their physical anchor and its frame of reference can be carried, transported or conveyed on the physical plane.

I'll reiterate again not being astrally portable does not mean a ward cannot be moved (as long as its the physical components doing the moving). In your example, the ward has moved and has encountered an astral/projecting presence - resolve as usual (pressing through barriers rules)

This "ruling" is in fact simply a clarification that reflects both the intention of the author and the developers. It is not contradicted in either of the books you quote to the best of my knowledge. Nowhere does it say that wards are static and immobile.

All the base book says is that "a ward cannot be moved from its physical
component to another location" it mentions nothing about what happens when the physical components (the physical anchor and the frame of reference) are themselves moved. What the FAQ clarifies is that as long as the relative relation of the physical elements of the ward are not disturbed while being physically moved then the ward itself will move.

Note that the wards require both a physical component for its anchor and for its limits.

Note there is a difference between it being able to move and it being carried, transported, or moved. Had we said at any point that a ward's astral construct was immobile, static, or immovable, I'd concede your point. We did not. We said the astral construct of a ward is not portable.

I fail to see an inconsistency. Lack of clarity yes. Inconsistency no. The ward is erected with an anchor as its physical component — at the time it is raised an appropriate shape and size is defined which may or may not conform with physical elements present. As long as the internal relation between the ward and the anchor isn't changed the ward hasn't moved .

The core book (p.185) says as much, a ward cannot be moved from its physical component to another location. This means the two cannot be separated or distanced. It makes no reference as to what happens when the physical reference itself moves.

Because nobody actually thought of including it and because it went back and forth several times during development. Neither the authors nor the editors thought to include it. Note that the material you mention above is specifically about raising wards in the first place, nothing more, nothing less.

Again both Street Magic and the core book state that the ward cannot move in relation to the anchor. If the ward and anchor moves there has been no relative movement.

Because no one at the time thought it would be a huge issue since the rules astral constructs/entities/etc moving through one another had already been covered in the rule book.

The list in the relevant section of the rule book (p.185-186) covers all sorts of mana barriers including wards, mana barrier spells and magical lodges (p. 185 first paragraph). No where does it state that the aforementioned mana barriers have to be immobile. Please feel free to cite where the rules declare that wards are immobile astral constructs, or where the Passing through Barriers rules spell out what happens when an area astral barrier spell (which I assume you agree can be mobile and is a mana barrier), say cast by someone riding in a car, encounters a ward.

I reiterate, this is no new rule, it is a clarification on the interpretation of existing rules (especifically the basic rules on Wards in the BBB and in SM).

tldr

You are correct in that the wording in the corebook can be interpreted both as referring to the anchor or to the delimiters. Again this will be clarified in upcoming FAQ and errata.

Um. Only one Frank quote so far.

It's been mostly Peter Taylor and Aaron Pavao. (Forum names "Synner" and "Aaron", respectively).

Not according to Frank.

Snark aside, I honestly don't understand Synner's argument. By the rules (in Street Magic), there are just 2 things: the anchor, and the ward bubble around it. The book says the anchor can't move. It doesn't say 'relative to the ward' (which, again, is just a bubble of mana). Even if you make the ward 'conform' to the walls of a room, it's *not* the walls, just a bubble up against them (or perhaps 'inside them'). They (or one of them) can be the anchor, as long as they're inside the ward.

I guess the main confusion is this bit: "Note that the wards require both a physical component for its anchor and for its limits." I don't know where this comes from. I don't see it in the rules at all. The existence of open-air wards makes this pretty obviously false, and the book explains that wards are spheres, ovoids, etc., none of which are likely to be the shape of physical objects nearby—cubes, perhaps, and they're an option. There's a bit in SR4A that's unclear enough to pass, though: "A basic ward must be placed on a non-living thing (walls, rocks, and so on), and it must possess a physical anchor (an object or symbol of mystical significance that provides a “focal point” for the ward). The anchor cannot be moved in relation to the ward."

So, either they're fully portable (flagrantly against the quoted bit), or they're not at all. Yes, this leaves the aircraft carrier problem. *shrug* I didn't write the crap. I honestly don't care which version is 'right', I just don't see how SR4A and Street Magic agree.

If all wards act with the same frame of reference, what could it be? An inertial frame of reference is silly, since the world is traveling far too fast for a ward to ever be stationary. I think the most obviously appropriate frame of reference is the Earth herself, the Gaiasphere that generates the astral field in the first place.

The problem is, of course, is that all anchors move from their starting location. At 1.3 million miles an hour.




-k

With regards to the spell on a train scenario, my understanding has been that it would stay with you. Sustained spells seem to me to be more connected to the person sustaining them than the environment around them, where as the anchor of a ward would suggest that it is more connected to it's physical location in some way. So actually, for the train example, my answer would be "That depends on what the mage wants to happen."

Nothing wrong with making the earth the reference point, KarmaInferno. It's magic.

For Phantasm/etc., I assume the reference point is the mage, but yes, there are clear issues with that. It's just magic. Let's talk about wards, and there's no reason the two should be similar. Wards definitely refer to 'location'. It is a stretch to make that mean something other than 'geographic location'.

My point is just that Street Magic and SR4A do not agree; the latter (vaguely!) implies some kind of multi-anchor system, while SM just says there's an anchor, period. I don't care which is right, I don't care if wards can move (or 'be moved', as if that distinction mattered), I just want coherence.

I don't care about the devs. The *books* disagree. Is he saying that Street Magic is wrong, and requires errata? Is he also saying that wards require an anchor *and* a perimeter object (but not an enclosing physical structure)?

I don't care about the devs. The *books* disagree. Is he saying that Street Magic is wrong, and requires errata? Is he also saying that wards require an anchor *and* a perimeter object (but not an enclosing physical structure)?

It's a significant difference. Synner's version is that open-air wards can't exist, because you have to have (some unspecified) amount of perimeter objects.

Yes, or the walls and ceiling of a room. But what about a gazebo? A cave with a mouth? A convertible? An open field with one cairn? Can you make a ward using 2 tent stakes, but not 1? 3?

Yes, but what *is* the perimeter? You didn't read. Is it 1 other point (a sphere with a center and any surface point)? Is it 3 points, 4, 8? A point and a line? A point and a surface? Can the convertible have a ward? Can the house without windowpanes?

That's not a good suggestion. You can just use a mana barrier spell in the place of *any ward* by that logic.

(Ack, you changed your reply. Well, I'm not changing mine. )

And, is it about having limits, or is it about having *objects* integrated into the ward structure? That is, basically multiple anchors, not just defined limits.

Right. But the open-air bubble is just the logical extreme of the 'walls with holes' issue. I agree that it's *usually* obvious: 'this room', etc. But it's a significant issue that we're not sure if you can make a mana dome *ward* in a field, a mana dome *ward* in a convertible/pickup truck, a ward that covers a circular-ish clearing in a forest, and so on. This is actually totally apart from the 'portable/movable' question, except for the fact that Synner's argument is based on it.

Except for the fact that the ward moves, the rules don't care if it moved relative, only that it moves.

Snark aside, I honestly don't understand Synner's argument. By the rules (in Street Magic), there are just 2 things: the anchor, and the ward bubble around it. The book says the anchor can't move. It doesn't say 'relative to the ward'

p. 123 Remaining Stationary
The third line should read:
“If the physical anchor moves more than a few centimeters from its location relative to the limits of the ward’s enclosure(…)”

Wards are not portable astral objects. The warding ritual creates an astral link between the shadow of the physical anchor and the space being warded. If the physical anchor moves more than a few centimeters from its location relative to the limits of the ward’s enclosure at the time of the warding ritual, the entire ward collapses.