Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Mana Static
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Dakka Dakka
Just so that no one comes up with the idea that spells only affecting one plane is an advanced concept form Street Magic:

QUOTE ('SR4A p. 183')
A magician in the physical world can only cast spells on targets that are in the physical world. Similarly, a magician in astral space can only cast spells on targets that have an astral form (though the auras of things in the physical world can be seen, auras alone cannot be targeted). An astrally perceiving (or otherwise dual-natured) magician can cast spells on a target in either the physical world or in astral space.

The spell Mana Barrier is even explicitly defined as only affecting one plane per casting:
QUOTE ('SR4A p. 194')
Magic can be used to create mana barriers on the physical or astral planes, and sometimes dual-natured barriers that exist on both. These barriers are created as spells (physical or astral), magical lodges (dual barriers), and wards (dual barriers).
Ascalaphus
One of the basic principles though, is that specific rules override general rules. Spells can't affect two planes, except those spells that explicitly state that that specific spell can.

Of course, just like Turn to Goo, it's the kind of abomination that Should Not Have Been Made That Way, but since it does exist, it's legal by virtue of being printed.

Also, I wouldn't consider it sufficient precedent to let a player design another that spell that breaks the rule too, even if they really wanted to.

I suppose that in the specific odd case of MS, you could argue that the spell causes MS on one plane, and it just bleeds through, that the crossing across planes is a specific ability of MS, not of spells. But that's splitting hairs.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 24 2011, 07:38 AM) *
And Irion... Background Count does not STACK... Only the most powerful one takes precedence, unless you have a negative and a positive, In which case, it would (or at least should) cancel and use the remaining as the (positive or negative) BGC.

In general, the most powerful Background Count takes precedence. The rules do not make it clear that there is a difference in handling of background count of the same type or of opposite polarity.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 25 2011, 06:14 PM) *
In general, Background Count does not stack. The rules do not make it clear that there is a difference in handling of background count of the same type or of opposite polarity.


In SPECIFIC it does not stack either, Toturi, unless you can provide a quote from a Canon Source... Assuming that you cannot, then the general takes precedence, as always.
Udoshi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 25 2011, 09:37 PM) *
In SPECIFIC it does not stack either, Toturi, unless you can provide a quote from a Canon Source... Assuming that you cannot, then the general takes precedence, as always.


OOoh, I can, I can!

QUOTE
A quick aside about mana, street magic 111
Mana is the stuff of magic, the inexplicable energy that fuels magical effects. Thought mana is most visible on the astral plane, where it provides a suffuse glow, mana is in fact present on the physical plane as well, though it is invisible. A spell cast on the physical plane does not draw mana from the astral, it uses mana from the physical side. Mana seems to flow freely between the physical and the atral however, so if an astral area is polluted by background count or aspected towards a particular type of magic, the physical mana in that area will be the same.


BEHOLD! Astral background count affects physical background!
Specific exception trumps general rules!
Suck it, naysayers!


If it helps, think of Mana Static as a super-charged form of Counterspelling. in the 'fuck you, nobody gets to use this mana' kind of way.

Super stealth edit:
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 25 2011, 02:19 AM) *
B) I could make the same argument vor a manaball. DOES NOT FLY. If you a spell creates something which affects both plane this spell is illegal. The only way to make it legal is for it to be written down in the book. Because it would be a case of special rule trumps general rule.

Go on, eat your words. I'm waiting.

Sorry, but mana static is pretty explicitly a spell that as an effect on more than one plane at once. (It creates a background count, background count affects both planes within its area, done).
Deal with it.
If it helps, blame the devs for making a wonky, poorly explained, inconsistent wording, and tons of 'the gm really decides how it works' stuff.
Yerameyahu
… But Udoshi, who said that wasn't the case? smile.gif It appears they're arguing about adding/canceling/trumping of 'overlapping' BGCs. The fact that BGC is BGC, regardless of plane, was pretty clear from the outset.
Udoshi
Sorry, I was distracted by Irion spazzing out and being wrong on the bottom of page 2.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 26 2011, 12:37 PM) *
In SPECIFIC it does not stack either, Toturi, unless you can provide a quote from a Canon Source... Assuming that you cannot, then the general takes precedence, as always.

My apologies, I have amended my statement.

I was actually pointing out that, in general, the most powerful Background Count takes precedence, not that Background Count can stack in specific cases.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Dec 25 2011, 10:23 PM) *
OOoh, I can, I can!



BEHOLD! Astral background count affects physical background!
Specific exception trumps general rules!
Suck it, naysayers!


If it helps, think of Mana Static as a super-charged form of Counterspelling. in the 'fuck you, nobody gets to use this mana' kind of way.

Super stealth edit:

Go on, eat your words. I'm waiting.

Sorry, but mana static is pretty explicitly a spell that as an effect on more than one plane at once. (It creates a background count, background count affects both planes within its area, done).
Deal with it.
If it helps, blame the devs for making a wonky, poorly explained, inconsistent wording, and tons of 'the gm really decides how it works' stuff.


Not what I was talking about Udoshi... smile.gif But thanks for the clarification.
My stance was that it did not STACK.
Edit: Looks like Yerameyahu covered that one... Ooops.. smile.gif

The interaction between a Warp and a Void is a little vague, however. Obviously you do not stack two positives, and obviously you do not stack two negatives, but what happens with one of each? I would likely apply the positive effectr, but I am also not goingt to have a fit if they cancel and the remainent is applied. smile.gif
Ascalaphus
If you could use MS to "pave over" a Mana Void, that'd be brutal.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Dec 26 2011, 09:17 AM) *
If you could use MS to "pave over" a Mana Void, that'd be brutal.


Yeah, it is pretty vague on the interaction between the positives and negatives. *shrug*
Rasumichin
QUOTE (bobbaganoosh @ Dec 23 2011, 11:04 AM) *
From what I was able to glean from the numerous threads, it's simply too powerful, and was thus removed (but now thoroughly enough). And yet, the spell seems to be in a printing of the German version of Street Magic, as well as the compiled tables in the back of my copy.


Yes, it was in the first German print run of Street Magic thanks to sloppy FanPro editing.
I own that version and tried to get it approved from my GM (don't even know why I did this in hindsight, I feel kinda bad for it).
He said hat he'd let if fly, but it could have unforeseen repercussions on astral space. I got scared of creating plot hooks that threaten to cause the end of the world (I'm prone to that anyway) and decided to pick another spell.
Irion
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Dec 26 2011, 06:23 AM) *
OOoh, I can, I can!

Start reading what is written for a start.
QUOTE
If it helps, think of Mana Static as a super-charged form of Counterspelling. in the 'fuck you, nobody gets to use this mana' kind of way.

Is counterspelling a spell? Actually not...

Super stealth edit:
QUOTE
Go on, eat your words. I'm waiting.

For what? For your words to make sense? That will take a while...
QUOTE
Sorry, but mana static is pretty explicitly a spell that as an effect on more than one plane at once. (It creates a background count, background count affects both planes within its area, done).
Deal with it.
If it helps, blame the devs for making a wonky, poorly explained, inconsistent wording, and tons of 'the gm really decides how it works' stuff.

And spells like that are illegal after genaral ruling. Rule already quoted!
So yes, the spell is in the book so the spell is legal. You are just unable to create a similar spell, because the rules for creating spells make it illegal.

Because think one step ahead.
What stops me from creating a manaball which (if casted on the astral plane) also affects the physical plane? After your own words it is possible, because mana static also effects both planes!
Ascalaphus
Irion: the key is that it's a two-step process. The spell makes BGC on one plane (thus not violating any rules), and the BGC then bleeds through to the other plane, because that's a special property BGC has.

Manaball wouldn't do that, because mana-splosions don't have that property.
Stahlseele
QUOTE (Rasumichin @ Dec 26 2011, 08:16 PM) *
Yes, it was in the first German print run of Street Magic thanks to sloppy FanPro editing.
I own that version and tried to get it approved from my GM (don't even know why I did this in hindsight, I feel kinda bad for it).
He said hat he'd let if fly, but it could have unforeseen repercussions on astral space. I got scared of creating plot hooks that threaten to cause the end of the world (I'm prone to that anyway) and decided to pick another spell.

The powergaming is weak in this one o.O
Udoshi
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 26 2011, 12:30 PM) *
What stops me from creating a manaball which (if casted on the astral plane) also affects the physical plane? After your own words it is possible, because mana static also effects both planes!


Manaball does not cause background count and you KNOW it.

Also, if mana static is legal, why wouldn't a mana static with a restricted target: self only be legal as well. It does the exact same thing mechanically.

Irion
@Ascalaphus
So I call the spellwhich does that "kamehameha" . The point is, mana static is illegal after the general rules, because it affects BOTH planes. All you argue that BC is an exeption. But if creating BC is an exeption, there is the open door for other exeptions.
If you do not want to see it, fine.
Yerameyahu
That simply doesn't make sense, Irion. You can't invent exceptions (only the GM or the writers can). I don't like Mana Static either, but that doesn't make this a cogent argument against it. smile.gif Not that one is even needed, because it's pretty clear that Mana Static should either not exist, or specifically create a non-BGC, BGC-like effect on a single plane.
Irion
@Yerameyahu
Thats what I am saying...
Manastatic is actually illegal considering the general rules...
Yerameyahu
Nothing *in* the rules can be illegal, though. Yes, it's (fully, fully) dumb, but no amount of argument can say that it doesn't exist, and it doesn't function in a way that breaks the rules. However it works, it makes BGC; BGC is dual-planar.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 27 2011, 12:25 PM) *
@Yerameyahu
Thats what I am saying...
Manastatic is actually illegal considering the general rules...


Manastatic is actual LEGAL due the SPECIFIC case of Mana Static (and the rules for Back Ground Count). Just wanted to correct that for you, Irion... smile.gif
Brazilian_Shinobi
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 27 2011, 04:25 PM) *
@Yerameyahu
Thats what I am saying...
Manastatic is actually illegal considering the general rules...


No it's not, as many people said already, it's an exception.
Irion
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 27 2011, 09:01 PM) *
Manastatic is actual LEGAL due the SPECIFIC case of Mana Static (and the rules for Back Ground Count). Just wanted to correct that for you, Irion... smile.gif

Alright, seems I am just thinking too logical... Might be a bit overkill for rulebooks...
Stahlseele
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 27 2011, 09:30 PM) *
Alright, seems I am just thinking too logical... Might be a bit overkill for rulebooks...

Repeat after me:
"This is Shadowtech, not Logitech!"
Yerameyahu
Yeah, cuz then it'd be computer mice and microphones and things. :/

I'm not prepared to admit that the problem is you're thinking 'too correctly', Irion. wink.gif But whatever works, hehe.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012