If you look at IRL car maker finance, a 3% increase in production cost will wipe our most of their profit margin. Increased insurance cost on th customers is no skin of the builder's nose until it significantly impacts the sales.

Finally, someone that isn't me actually gets out their books and reads this stuff before commenting on how they think it works.

Thank you for actually raising rules awareness in this thread! Good job, do it more often.

And actually bothers to cite their sources! Keep that good habit up, buddy!




(I'll give a more serious response when its not past midnight and I can actually think straight about what you wrote.)



This sounds hilarious, please tell me more.

At our table, we ignore it completely, as we do a lot of these constant security measures. The presumption is that a countermeasure exists, and that the characters know what it is, and will use it: the 400th time of playing out disassembling a car to its frame stops being particularly interesting for most of our players.


Yeah. Finally. Someone.

snowRaven quoted the same part I quoted. As expected, it backed up what I'd been saying. You can say I didn't provide page numbers, but stop pretending that we're all making things things up and haven't read the books.

Actually the price for Tags is for 20 of them per Sr4A's table. So 5¥ each. It's worse than that.... the air should be filled with the bloody things.

Indeed, and all materials have nanotags simply 'dissolved' in them. What a mess.

Well, since you need line of sight you can use software and AR to block out people in your field of vision using computerized graphics, and since that blocks you from seeing them they can't be affected by your Stunball/Orgasm/Mob Mind or whatever area spell you want.

This should be standard fare for any SR security force worth their salt, really - it's easy, and effective, per RAW. Cheesy as well, though, imo.

And Udoshi... In case you are wondering, the software is known as Negator. It is an ARE Program. You can find it in Unwired.

It's not *that* cheesy: this is the kind of tech-meets-magic tactic that you'd expect in SR.

Agreed... Not THAT Cheesy.

Hell, think about Spam Zones, "I can't see anything to hit with my spells! Why the hell did I not get a better Firewall???"

True...but the rules have always made a special point of mages not being able to 'selectively ignore' valid targets for area spells, which is exactly what using the software does, really.

Plus, in order to be effective in combat, the software has to be able recognize the 'undesired' and edit it out fast enough so that the mage never even gets a hint of aura seen (and the program can't actually see the aura in any way) which means basically that it has to foresee every movement the 'undesirable target' makes and edit accordingly in real time. That, or the blot out has to be big enough to allow for sudden movements.

Stuff like lighting conditions can change the appearance of people, along with wounds, dirt etc...how different can the undesired target start to look before the program stops seeing him or her as undesirable?

For 100 , you get a program so efficient that it is able to recognize, analyze, and edit out stuff in real time in a chaotic combat situation regardless of how they are moving or what they are doing, to such an efficiency that it blots out the entirety of their auras at all times, even during unexpected movements of both the mage and the non-targets...

If it had to be combined with Tacsofts, possibly RFIDs, and there were rules for how likely it was that the covered people were glimpsed and 'just' got cover, that'd be one thing. I just don't feel that such a cheap, simple, commonly available program should be able to do all that is required at the necessary efficiency.

But AREs are always really cheap and really good at what they do...

I think the aura argument counts: The program would have to blot out more than it can actually see. If it does, you should get visibility penalties.

Right, snowRaven, they can't do it naturally. They need the software. Like I said, it is a *little* amazing, but not as bad as many other things. I agree that it requires pretty impressive computation to do it, but we're given to accept that such computation exists in 2070. You could make the 'combat-grade' version of it much more expensive, or indeed, require Tacsoft, etc.

I don't think the aura extends far enough to worry about this. It somehow 'peeks through' clothing (I've heard that it 'bleeds through'), but that's not very far even if we take that to mean 'the aura extends <clothing> distance in all directions at all times'.

The metahuman aura - explicitly in previous versions, implicitly in SR4 - extends at least a handsbreadth from the surface of the skin, else it wouldn't be visible through sufficiently bulky military grade body armor. Yes, this means that, like lightning strikes, you want to keep your arms and legs away from the sides of the vehicle. And don't lean again exterior windows, polarized* or otherwise.

*"Polarized" here meaning SR's magic polarized glass, of course, not actual polarized glass.

Change 'clothing' to 'full heavy military armor'

And they 'can' do it naturally, by positioning themselves so that they intentionally cover what/whomever they don't want to hit with objects in between. Thing is, there isn't really much mention of how the Negator works or doesn't work. It sure doesn't seem it was intended to work as a default 'friendly-fire safety' for mages. From it's description, I read it as more of 'just' pasting preset images over preset stuff identified from a (likely customizable) database. I highly doubt it'd be fool proof, especially smart, or adaptible enough to be of *that* much use in a combat situation.

Of course, compared to what stuff like Emotitoys, Tacsofts, and various stuff from War! can do, it's very mild...

Personally, I'd either force the mage to take the equivalent of an aiming action to make sure everything's going to turn out as intended, have every covered target make an Edge test to be 'safe', or require a more expensive, harder to get program with a Rating (more along the line of the costs for Tacsofts, Emoti-sensor progs etc), where the Rating is equal to the maximum number of people it can cover in as chaotic a situation as a combat situation (and with the option of doing the opposite, possibly - cover everything but the desired targets).

Something like this:

Armor is clothing, full military or not. Like I said, there's some indication that worn clothing *is* special in terms of aura interaction.

Implicit or not, we *know* that the aura doesn't extend through windows, walls, cardboard, etc. As I said, the facts don't agree. Still, my point is that one can easily imagine the negators working despite this pretty small aura extension (whatever it is).

What indications would those be?


Interesting. Where are you seeing that?

Where are you seeing that it does? Everything we know indicates that barriers wholly block magic LOS. Clothing and armor is the sole exception (and this is presumably because they're not Barriers, they're clothing). The rules here are beyond vague, as I said.

Explicitly in previous versions, implicitly with SR4a. Assuming we're sticking to SR4a, the "implicit" part is that fully-sealed body armor doesn't block LOS, so we can imply that, say, leaning against a window would make you a valid target. But we don't have to imply this! Another interpretation is that clothing [including, as you note, armor] has some special property [like plot convenience! ] that makes it not block LOS when other things do. That's why I was asking where you were seeing any explicit mention that the aura doesn't extend through windows, walls, cardboard, etc: to see if there was actually an explicit rule that would contradict the implication, but I think you're saying that there isn't, correct?

The basic LOS and astral sight rules say that you can't see through barriers, objects, etc., with no mention of how close you're standing. I'm saying that, yes, these conflicting facts mean we have to assume that clothing is special.

And I would argue this is exactly correct: the basic LOS and astral sight rules don't allow you to see through barriers, objects, etc. However, the basic astral rules do allow astral stuff like metahuman auras to pass through material things with impunity, don't they? It seems like this would also explain why you can target someone in military grade armor who you cannot see, and wouldn't require that one type of material behave differently from another ["clothing" from "everything else"].

No, I've never seen anything that indicates you can target anything that is physically behind a barrier, whether 1mm or 1m behind it. And yes, it requires clothing to be special, like a said a couple times. I didn't write the, rules, it's not my fault they're dumb.

How exactly did this derail to a discussion about a living being's aura?
To point it out, neither RFIDs nor cars have an aura. They only appear as pale shadows on the astral plane.

Now back to the topic:

Way ahead of you: "Street Magic", p. 174 has the "Pulse" spell. Basic EMP field to which RFIDs are very vulnerable. It's a manipulation spell, though. It supposedly doesn't care about line of sight to any RFIDs because it just creates a field regardless of anything in it - it's a side effect that RFIDs do not like this field. The spell doesn't try to magically sort between targets.
For the technical solution: get a drone with a non-linear junction detector and a few vehicular tools and a HERF pistol. Preferrably a small drone, if not several of them. They will get into places you cannot reach. Also add means to physically remove RFIDs that cannot be erased that easily.
Hacking and rewriting those RFIDs is another viable idea. I would still think, though, that they have a specific Access ID - you could edit the information they broadcast, but not the ID, that requires hardware access. You could spoof it, anyway. If you physically remove the original tags, it would be best to just add in your own with the appropriate information.
Of course, you could mix the technical and magical methods. "Detect RFID" is awesome to make sure you got every last one of those little buggers. The mage could highlight them in a 3D plan of the car utilizing a ultrawideband radar, possibly.
I wish I could find this old post again where cleaning a car was described as a remote operation... also using drones. There have also been other threads regarding this topic, e.g. this one.
Well, wall of text finished. I particularily like this topic, just because I plan on bugging my GM with ideas as such...

Sounds good to me, Modular Man.

Is the HERF a pistol? I always assumed it was a large-ish longarm.

It would suck to be that poor mage, because you can't extract magic senses via simsense; he'd have to mark every bugger in 3D manually, and there could be scads.

I don't think anything of the sort exists in SR4: that's why we're left with the implication. Again, the choice is:

1. Auras can pass through non-living objects [explicitly stated] and extend beyond the metahuman body [implied in SR4s sealed-armor targeting, explicit in earlier versions].
2. Auras extend beyond the metahuman body [implied in SR4s sealed-armor targeting, explicit in earlier versions], but can't pass through any barrier except clothing [stated nowhere], unless that aura is astrally projecting in which case it can pass through material things just fine [explicitly stated].


I prefer to interpret the rules in such a way as to make them not dumb, is the thing. Your interpretation relies on the absence of a rule ["I've never seen anything that indicates you can target anything that is physically behind a barrier"] and relies on a weird exception [auras can only pass through clothes, nothing else, unless astrally projecting]. Why not, instead, use the interpretation that doesn't require special pleading, isn't contradicted by any existing rules, and is fully supported by previous versions of the game?

3278, I think you're missing a perfectly reasonable explanation here.


Auras expand to incorporate worn objects, because the simple act of wearing something makes it so metaphysically yours (until you take it off, at least) that it shows up as part of your aura. Hence, someone wearing full military heavy armor is a valid targeting aura, but someone inside a rigger cocoon is not.

That's the traditional idea that I've heard over the years; it's a particular version of 'clothes are special'. It doesn't necessarily make sense, unless clothing 'knows' that it's clothing. But, it explains the facts we're given.

Your version, 3278, requires the utterly problematic and totally illogical idea that auras 'protrude' through barriers. I prefer to interpret the rules in such a way as to make them not unplayable, is the thing. If auras can peek through solid objects (which you claim is explicitly stated?), then we need precise rules for how far they go, are wards included, are they harder to see (we have none of these rules); as well as reconsidering all the implications of cover suddenly not really existing in many cases. A convenient and stupid 'clothing exception' is just easier. I'd rather have one small wart than a huge issue, however 'elegant in theory'.

Now, I don't recall in previous editions that you could magic someone behind a wall. If this was the case, I'm glad you can't any longer. The fact that you have no evidence except the fact that armor doesn't stop targeting is strong support for my theory. If something as game-changing as spelling-through-barriers were true, we'd know about it.

I think that's pretty reasonable, and works nicely as an explanation for other effects in the game, too, like Invisibility. It's not the interpretation I'd use - refugee from earlier versions, sorry! - but I think that's reasonable, absolutely.


Maybe you could explain what's illogical about the idea. Don't purely astral things like auras go through material things all the time?


And I fear neither of us shall: to my knowledge - and I think we might have covered this - the whole issue just isn't discussed at all in this version, which is too bad, since it leaves a pretty clear paradox, without a clear resolution. My resolution works well for me, but I've a lot of practice with it; if yours is working for you, by all means, you should stick with it.

AFAIK, auras never goes through objects, no. That's why the 'clothing exception' is *the* clothing exception.

My point is that your lack of evidence is 'worse' than mine, and it implies that the position is wrong. If you were correct, we'd *expect* evidence (or, conclude that the rules are just that badly written, heh).

I still don't understand about earlier versions? It's been a long time, so I'm sure I forgot.

Interesting. So, for you, an astrally-projecting magician's astral form can pass through a wall, but his aura couldn't?


Yeah, that's almost always what people think. Usually both sides of the argument say the same thing: "If your way was right, they'd have written something, but they wrote nothing, so my way must be right!" The internet never ceases to amuse.

dp

Interesting. For you, an astral-projecting magician is like a non-projecting physical person? (Don't be snide.) Those are totally different conditions. Astral forms can pass through walls, auras cannot radiate through them. So, no, when an astral form is standing behind a wall, its aura doesn't protrude.

*shrug* You can dismiss it if you like, but my position is the null case. You're the one claiming something new. My position requires no additional (and suspiciously missing) rules, like the distance of aura extension. Etc., as I said earlier.

Interesting. Why do you suppose astral forms and auras are different in this way?


Well, really old, actually. To me, this is the default assumption, and has been for a really long time, so pardon me if this is all a bit bemusing.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. As far as this version is concerned, we're both claiming something new: you that clothing [including armor] is uniquely aura-permeable, and me that everything material is aura-permeable. That's okay: it's okay to claim something new, when the rules don't cover a circumstance. I don't think it's bad for us to have done that.


Right, your position just requires the additional and suspiciously missing rules explaining how clothing is aura-permeable, but nothing else is. Like I say, it's pretty normal in situations like this for somebody to say, "Mine's the null case, and yours is special pleading!" But the fact is, both of our cases require the same-sized missing hole in the rules, and we're just speculating based on the shape of the hole. If you feel like this is an "argument" that you have to "win," then by all means let's talk about evidence and whatever, but I think you're probably safe to relax: this conversation passed the rules by a long while ago, and neither you nor I will get to wear them against this terrible, terrible cold.

[edit: And please, don't feel like I'm "dismiss[ing]" your interpretation! I don't happen to share it, because I don't think it's internally consistent and because I have a version history. You don't share my interpretation, because you're not interested in rethinking the entirety of how you manage "standing near walls" in your game, and I don't think that's unreasonable, either. I don't want you to feel like I'm dismissing your position, it just doesn't work for me, for my personal standards, with my personal history. That doesn't mean I don't consider it, or value it, or you. We hold a different position, but that doesn't mean I believe your position is deficient.]

I don't understand the question. They're different because they're in no way the same. If my hand is white, you can't see that color through a sheet of (thick) aluminum foil. If I push my hand through, you can instantly see the color. This seems like an accurate metaphor for the astral form/aura distinction (alternatively, replace 'white' with 'softly glowing'). The aura never pierces the barrier, it's merely a feature of the astral form.

I keep asking about your previous editions assertion. Are you just ignoring that?

Right, mine requires one simple exception. Yours requires several spelled-out mechanical rules. Hehe. Sadly, I'm fully prepared to entertain the idea that the writers simply left those rules out by accident. If I thought that auras peeking through walls was desirable, your position does indeed make sense.

That's definitely an interesting way of thinking about it, thank you.


I'm sorry, I didn't see any questions. What was it you wanted to know?

I'm not sure what kind of conversations you've had in the past, but I'm not the kind of person who's going to ignore a question because the answer is awkward to me. I get high on finding out I'm wrong: it's how I get right. I know sometimes people play rhetorical games, ignoring questions and quibbling points of logic to score points, but that's not really for me, just so you know: I'm perfectly satisfied with how tiny my penis is.


That doesn't bother me. Not only don't I think it requires a whole lot of rules, but I don't really care if it does require some more: I find that a superior solution to something even you say, "doesn't necessarily make sense." That's a difference in emphasis: I get the impression that the rules [and rules-related issues like game balance] matter a little more to you than they do to me, which helps to explain our difference in preference as regards this particular issue, as well.

The point wasn't that 'many rules' is bad, but that the absence of more (and more mechanically-involved) rules is stronger evidence against your position than the absence of one simple (if silly) rule is against mine; that's all.

You mentioned repeatedly that previous editions worked the way your argument suggests. I, not remembering anything about previous editions except things in Rigger 3, asked if you could be more specific. Are you actually saying that auras in previous editions extended out from the body and through nearby objects? Etc.

Except that no fewer rules changes are actually required by your interpretation: you've made a list of the ones involved with mine, but haven't made a similar list for yours, is all. For mine, you brought up the need for, "precise rules for how far they go," as well as visibility and cover,* but the same types of rules would be required for clothing being uniquely transparent to auras, like what's required for you to be "wearing" something [and not just having it around you], how many layers of clothing would be included, whether auras can be seen through clothing on the astral plane, whether the aura shining through clothing changes astral visibility, etc.

Like I said before, there's a hole in the rules. The hole is the same size, whatever shape we put it in. I'm sorry, and I know this hurts, but I don't think one of us is going to get some kind of blessing from the rules that'll make it clear which of us is packing the most metaphorical heat. I mean, you know, in terms of being right.


Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, I thought I'd been clear about that: yes, in previous editions, the aura extends out from the body and through nearby objects.

Not in SR1, mind you: in SR1, inanimate objects explicitly "block the passage of magical energy and emotions, two primary elements of the astral form or aura." [SR1 89] [Note that in SR1, the "astral form" and "aura" were metaphysically the same thing.] But in SR2, "a living aura radiates a short distance from the being," and oh yeah, sorry we didn't really think through things like 'sealed combat armor' and LOS and touch attacks; here's a page of background on how magic works. [SR2 149] The saving grace is intended to be that you can't attack an aura you can only see part of, so a little sticking around a corner wasn't supposed to be enough, but no explicit rules were given for how far or anything like that: that's all on the GM.

My memory gets hazy after that. I'm not sure SR3 mentioned the issue at all, but all the drugs and cheeses of the last 20 years can't be good for my brain, and you've got to be pretty proud of me for remembering where to go in SR1 and SR2 at 2am on a Saturday morning. If it got brought up in SR3, it'd be a little further afield, in Awakenings or Magic in the Shadows, but I've got to be awake and driving a car with no roof or doors through a snow storm in 4 hours, so it's to bed with me!

*And whether wards would be treated like brick walls, but I think the answer to that one's pretty clearly a no, but I often think things are clear when they're really not. ;)

I still disagree ('clothing is excepted, no munchkinry' seems to totally cover it), but I can see you'll only be snide about it. That's one of the classical appeals, right?

So, it sounds like you have zero previous edition evidence that involves auras going *through* anything, nor targeting spells via that. In fact, the rules mentioned seem to be explicitly the opposite of those two points (SR1 and SR2, respectively). I'm glad my memory isn't as bad as I was prepared to believe.

Funny things: I looked the HERF gun up in my version of "Arsenal", which happens to be the german one. There it is named a pistol. There is no similar statement in the english version. Go figure
Jep, said mage would have to do it all by himself, it would be quite some handiwork. Would work with a pre-rendered 3D map and an Edit program, though, I think. I'd picture it as an extended computer + Edit test.

Or the mage gets a bound F6 task spirit with "Hardware" and "Automotive Mechanic" and commands it to remove all RFID-tags from the vehicle. Then the spirit uses his search power to find the tags and Automotive Mechanic + Hardware to remove them.

Soap and water?

Um. Did you read the page I referenced in SR2? I would recommend you do that before coming to any conclusions: what I quoted is by no means the entirety of the rules listed there! If you don't have a copy, please, let me know, and I'll quote the whole paragraph.

I can dig them up; I didn't because I assumed you quoted the good parts. So, you're still saying that SR1 and/or SR2 explicitly have rules for auras *piercing* objects and for targeting spells through objects based on that?

Well, I'll tell you what: you go check out page 149 of SR2 for what it says, and check out my posts for what I said, and if the two don't match, boy, you make sure to rush back here and let us all know.

Just a related question... lets say I make a spell... a variant of powerbolt "destroy fingernails", a spell which evaporates the fingernails of a target. Are you seriously going to tell me that someone wearing gloves, or who has their hands in their pockets is immune to the spell because I can't see his fingernails? I'm reasonably certain making such a spell would work, and wearing gloves isn't going to save you. As such, why would a spell expressly designed to burn out RFID's which are built into a car, just as your fingernails are built into your hands be any different?

By RAW, if it only affects fingernails, you have to see the fingernails you want to affect.

You could provably design a spell that doesn't target the fingernails specifically, instead targetting the person and evaporating their fingernails. That would work, but you wouldn't get the drain reduction from 'very resistricted target' -- and I have no clue if it should be considered a combat spell, health spell or manipulation spell.

Something similar could work with RFIDs, but how do you differentiate when an RFID is part of the car and when it's not? There are many ways to attach or incorporate the RFIDs into the structure and interior space of the car, and if you want to get them all you most likely will have to target some individually anyway.

Well, for my money, it'd be because the hands belong to a living thing and the RFIDs don't, but this would also depend on Direct or Indirect, Mana or Physical. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and I'm not actually certain my answer makes sense.

Yeah, that spell is illegal from the get-go, Mordinvan. We haven't been talking about a spell that targets a car and produces the effect "destroy car's RFIDs"; it's a spell that *targets* RFIDs we've been discussing.

3278, I didn't say you didn't match the book. I said what you presented said nothing about auras piercing objects, nor allowing targeting through them. Alas, upon checking, I only kept the 'source' books from SR3 (not the rule books). The more complete quotes you offered would be handy after all.