It is not explicit in the least. Did you get that underlined part from an inference? Because that is a House-Rule, the very same "sin" that Falconer is accusing me of.

The only things explicit about Spell Defense are:

You get it for yourself automatically, with no declaration or action needed.
To use it on anyone else, you must declare it and spend a Free Action.
It does not get used up if needed multiple times per round.
Designated characters are protected until the magician decides to end it (no action given - I'll explain below).
You can defend against spells that you are not aware of with a Test.

Now, TJ and Falconer, can you please show me exactly where in this section of the rules:

where it not only declares what action must be taken to end Spell Defense but where it supercedes this rule:
?
I'll help you - it does not do either of those. Since the Duration Clause does not supercede the Action Clause then the Action must be declared and spent every time your Action Phase comes along otherwise you have "not declared it in advance and it may not be used to defend others."

Something here that may help you comprehend this apparently difficult concept is found on SR4A, page 144, under Combat Turn Sequence, specifically numbers 3. Begin Action Phase (A and B) and 5. Begin Next Initiative Pass.

The rules are fairly explicit about this.

I'm not on a side, TJ, because I don't care about counterspelling. I would replace the rules for it entirely. I do care if you're too lazy to argue and instead just declare something 'ignorant'. That's not cool! Are you tired today? You did it in another thread as well, and that's not like you.

I didn't see where the rules make a distinction between 'potential LOS' and 'actually in sight', but I'm happy to hope I just missed it (it would mean one less error in the rules!). We do know that spellcasting says 'LOS' but means 'actually in sight'. Counterspelling indeed *should be* limited only by 'does a clear astral LOS exist?', but that's not what these guys are talking about.

Actually no, because as I pointed out above, the Counterspell skill is always active. You cannot turn it off. Once you take it, it is active until you die. But it is restricted to you. However, to extend that bubble, you must take a free action to add people to your protection list. If you want to change that bubble, you must spend a free action to change the list contents (including removing all members of the list so that only you are protected).

No. You always get to use Counterspelling on yourself, as per sentence 1 of paragraph 1. However, under sentences 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 you need to declare who you will protect and spend an action otherwise they will no be protected. Under the Initiative Pass rules, when your Action Phase comes back around you must re-declare things exactly as if it were the first Initiative Pass.

Using fluff explanations of things is a poor excuse for using rules to explain things.

Therefore it is always on, but limited to you.


What we have been saying the whole time. No argument here




Please show me where it states that in the Counterspelling section. Under the combat rules it specifically states that you must declare your attack (including targets) every time (SR4a, pg. 149, Step #1). Under the use of Sorcery for spell casting it specifically states that you must choose your targets every time (SR4a, pg. 183, Step #2). However, if you are sustaining a spell there is no requirement that you state you are sustaining it, nor do you have to declare the target at every IP. Likewise, there is no listing under the Counterspelling section. It states that the magician must use a free action to declare who they are protecting and that the protection lasts until the magician decides to end it. They end it by using another free action to declare they are not protecting that person. That is the rules per the SR4a pg. 185. No fluff involved and the wording is very clear.


You are correct that you do not continue to spray bullets. But not because you have to declare you are still using the skill. You stop, because the rules for suppressive fire (SR4a, pg. 154) state that you only use 20 bullets and then you stop. Suppressive fire is not continuous fire, it is a spray and pray fire with a max of 20 bullets. There is no specific phrases that says you spend a complex action to attack and the attack lasts until you decide to stop like there is with counterspelling. So, that is not a legitimate parallel. There really is no exact parallel that I can find, but the best that I could come up with is the subscriptions in hacking. You are always subscribed to the node where your persona is running. You can spend a complex action to subscribe to another node. Once you are subscribed, you remain subscribed until you decide to spend a simple action to log off or a free action to jack out (removing all your subscriptions). You do not have to declare it every IP because there is a mechanic to follow to change it, just like counterspelling.

Neraph: I'll continue to call it a house rule because it is. You cannot cite one shred of evidence in the initiative and actions section or you would. You wouldn't just cite page and section... you'd cite chapter and verse. You wouldn't cite various argumentative/logical fallacies (which don't apply).

You cannot cite anything which says the effect ends and needs renewed at the start of each action phase. So you invent one. On the other hand, I CAN cite chapter and verse which clearly says it lasts so long as the caster cares to protect the target. I can find parallel wording again in the magic section on the use of another magical skill (spellcasting) which also shows that as long as the caster cares to sustain the spell... requires no more action on the part of the caster until he decides to end it. You cannot cite anything except your preference. You cannot cite anything whatsoever in the rulebook to back up your argument. That's why you're purely in the realm of house rules.

You yourself then turn around and admit, that when I point out melee combat allows you to passively add your own physical combat skill to your defense each time. Is because the rules say you do. And numerable other cases of 'passive' skill use (passive, skills used automatically when someone else does something... like when they are in the act of casting a spell on one or more of your protected targets; or when attacked in melee; or when someone does something to draw attention to themselves like fire a gun perception skill is used automatically... etc; all these skills ALSO have active uses where the character can use the skill not in reaction as well as per their individual rules. There is no overarching concept of it needs be declared every pass).

Do I need to also declare I'm using perception every pass to not be surprised and locate when someone shoots at me?! No. The rules don't say I do. Similarly the rules only say that counterspelling must be declared in advance... (not within the last action phase... which they clearly could have said if they intended it that way).



Forgarn... actually no... the reason suppressing fire doesn't isn't because you run out of bullets... the rules could make no sense and say you fire 1 bullet and suppress everything in all directions around you for 10m and they'd still be the rules.

The reason suppressing doesn't last is because the RULES SAY THEY DON"T. (p154)
"The area remains "suppressed" until the characters next Action Phase."

It doesn't stop being suppressed at the end of the initiative pass... it lasts until the characters next action phase. The initiative and order of actions Neraph keeps citing NEVER ONCE BRINGS UP THIS GOLDEN RULE OF HIS. This is why I say he's creating a house rule then enforcing everything else to conform to his house rule. The reason suppressing fire stops suppressing is only because the rules specific to suppressing fire (and the use of the appropriate ranged combat skill) specifically say it does.


TJ: does have that mostly right...
The requirement does say "LOS". The only reason I've ever seen this come up is when you get people trying to run 'blinders' so they can cast massive force 9 manaballs (9m radius... stop and think how many rooms including the caster can't contain that!) while blocking LOS to their allies intentionally using glasses to black them out of their sight.

The problem here is that sight has two possible readings... it could mean simply stay where it's possible for the caster to see the target. Or it can be read to mean that the caster must see the target at time of casting. That is a greyness in the rules. Are they within line of sight if they're outside your field of view? The magic rules section actually defines Line-Of-Sight in the RAW as it pertains to spellcasters... (p203, range LOS). "If the target can see the target, regardless of distance it can be affected." The least restrictive reading of 'can' in this sentence is 'is capable of' (the mage is capable of seeing the guy in the sneak suit even if he fails the perception check... he just didn't...). The more restrictive is... actually recognizes the target(s). If something is outside the characters field of view, can he see it?

I've avoided touching this truly is a grey area of the rules.

Does that mean that I can stunball force 10 myself (sorta like firing artillery straight up and diving into the bunkers while being overrun!). And knock out everyone in a 10m radius around me while praying my 11stun track will let me limp away (does my counterspelling automatically defend me against casting my own spell!!!). Or do I only get the ones 10m away in front of my field of view when I cast it....

The distinction is important if you rule it one way for counterspelling protection... why aren't you ruling it the same way for an offensive spell. (I know most people won't let me stunball things behind me without looking behind me and not being able to stunball things in front of me short of wierd stuff like mirrors).

No Worries, Yerameyahu... And yes, it has been a trying week. Apologies all around if I have offended.
I am just going to let Neraph and Falconer continue to duke this particular issue out.

Again: YOU CANNOT USE EQUIPMENT OR SPELL RULES AS EQUIVALENTS FOR SKILL USE. THEY ARE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BOOK FOR A REASON. YOU MUST USE EXAMPLES OF SKILLS TO PROVE HOW SKILLS WORK. Get it now?

Now, to continue: in the section about Combat Turn Sequence on page 144, SR4A, the rules state in no uncertain terms that you must declare what skills you will use and spend the actions to use them. Specifically in 5. Begin Next Initiative Pass it states that when you have resolved the first Initiative Pass you repeat Steps 2-4, which include Declare Actions. Fast forward now to Spell Defense in SR4A, page 185; the second and third sentences of the first paragraph in no uncertain terms states that if you intend to use Spell Defense on anyone other than you then you must spend a Free Action to do so. So now, following the logic of how the RAW works, every single time your Action Phase comes up you must declare what skills (REMEMBER, SUSTAINED SPELLS ARE NOT SKILLS) you want to use and then spend the appropriate actions in order to use them. When you declare in your first Action Phase that you want to use Spell Defense, then it works. However, if you act again and do "not declare Counterspelling in advance, it may not be used to defend others..."

This really is basic mechanical knowledge of this game.


You mean like my new method of quoting Book, page, Heading, paragraph, and sentence number that I've been doing this whole thread?

Again, I will no longer respond to your arguments as you've proven that you are simply trolling me.

And once again Neraph... I bring up your problem. That would mean you need to declare EVERY passive skill in the game every turn. I didn't declare this or that skill... therefor I can't use them even with this other guy right in my face.

You do not need to declare every IP... because the rules state you do not. You're inventing a requirement that 'every skill be declared'. This is patentlly untrue. You declare which ACTIONS you're taking that round, not which skills you're using. Once again it's a critical difference you seem to miss. Many actions have consequences which continue on until another new action is taken. (login followed by logout, etc. etc. etc.) Whether an action has an ongoing effect is determined by the rules pertinent to that skill... once the action is invoked... the rules for IP's/action phases etc. don't matter except for when you may take the next action related to it. That's why all the meat of the issue is on p185, not in the action phase rules. All the meat of EVERY ACTION YOU CAN TAKE does not lie in the action phase rules, but in the rules for the actions you declare.


Counterspelling has both active and passive uses. It needs to be declared in advance (just like turning off the safety on your gun)... once that safety's released it stays released until you set it back. Why is this so... because the RULES AS WRITTEN say it is so. No wierd penumbras, no emanations, no other tomfoolery. I would also even extend that to the Rules As Intended also do... (you and your team are relaxing in a bar... do you declare every round you're counterspelling or do you just turn it on then kick back and relax with everyone else! You already automatically protect yourself all the time except surprise... why is it that much of a stretch that your teammates be denied magical protection if you make the surprise roll when someone busts in the door to the bar? (stop and think how ackward that is... yeah I'm declaring counterspelling every 3s all the time every time... I do not for one second think that's how the rules are supposed to operate RAI. RAW most definately doesn't operate like that).

The action for counterspelling... is 'free action' declare which targets in LOS you will protect in the future. Not once anywhere in the entire magical section, in the entire skills section, in the entire p185 section devoted to counterspelling skill and it's uses is it ever said it must be declared every action phase. This is an invented requirement on your part, which has NO RAW TO BACK IT UP. Hence House rule.


And yes I can use other skill use rules as analogues... because each one is governed by their relevant skill use text. NOT BY THE IP MECHANIC!!! You're inventing a mechanic then cherrry picking a single case (counterspelling)... then saying nothing else applies because they're all different. When from a rules perspective, no they're not. They're all the same, they do what the rules say they do. Common sense, or similar doesn't enter into it. Every skill is either invoked by an action then the rules for that action play out, or is invoked automatically by someone elses actions.


You can keep arguing this til you're blue in the face. All it does is reduce your credibility even more every time you assert it though.

You mean the same part of the book where Counterspelling is described? Because counterspelling is described in the magic section under spells, not in the skill section.

We are definitely going to strongly disagree on how this works. So, you play your game according to your interpretation of the rules, and I will play mine according to my interpretation (and most everyone else that has posted here).

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to point out that there is some fine points left out of this.

Mages can use counterspelling to counter detection or illusion spells they were NOT aware of. However, to me, "Actively counterspelling" means a declaration of such.

When I use magic, I find that the effects of it are drastically toned down from when I see an NPC use it. Maybe it's the concept that I'm having to deal with so much more opposition in my lifetime then an NPC mage, so my manaball doing around 4 stun damage to a group of goons isn't all that great, but a mana ball that just targeted the entire party and did the same amount of damage? Now we're all at a -1 to everything and most, if not all, of the heavy hitters are already half of the way to unconscious. That's why I looked at the spells difference that way.

If I take Falconer's advice, counterspelling makes sense and it's viable to use a a main defensive skill that everyone in the group will be happy about. If I use Neraph's interpretation of how the rules work, I am spending another free action every turn to add around two or three dice to everyone's pool. The exchange rate of time and dice bonuses leaves a bad taste in my mouth about how counterspelling should work. So let's try something else here.

Guys...what makes sense? I don't care about RAW anymore. Does it make sense to, every round, use a free action to 'cast' your counterspelling again and make sure it's up? Or does it make sense that you turn it on and simply use a free action to change your 'astral subscription' list? Because I would heavily lean to the later rather then the former. It makes counterspelling useful.

Third option - treat it like a sustained spell, with a -1 or -2 penalty while "sustaining"...

just throwing it out there...

This is the way I run it (and will continue to run it...based on my interpretation and that of others here). You always have it on (unless you are unconscious), so there is really no declaring that you are using it (part of the description of counterspelling). If you want to protect your party, you spend a free action to make your list and that list continues until you spend a free action to change it again. Any of those that leave your LoS are auto removed from the list.


@phlapjack77: While this would make a good rule, I don't see a problem with the rules the way they are. However, if there were issues, then I would definitely go with that suggestion.

Back@ CrystalBlue: How is your manaball doing stun damage? Manaball is a direct attack that does physical damage. And what force are you casting it at? Also if you did 4 damage to the goons they are also at -1. 3 boxes is 3 boxes and it is a -1 to them as well.

How I've argued for the last few pages is how I feel the RAW states how skills work and how Counterspelling's Spell Defense in particular is written. I feel the others have done a poor job of arguing otherwise, especially in regard to the fact that as Initiative Passes reset you must re-declare actions. Spell Defense is not a passive skill per se, as it has a passive use (self) and more than one active use (Spell Defense for others and others) - a good analog would be Dodge, especially melee/ranged Dodge.

However, when asked for what the rules are I will do my best to explain how the rules state things should work. You have asked, though, how the rules should be, which is an entirely different question. What I've argued for is what I believe the RAW states (ambiguously, admittedly), although what Falconer and others have argued for is the RAI, and I agree with how I believe the rules were intended. All the intent in the world does not change what is actually written, though.

I'm sorry...I get confused by Manaball and Stunball. Same net effect, though. Dudes take 4 damage, get a -1 dice pool. For a bunch of bad guys, this is a minimal thing to notice, since they are designed to get chewed up. A minus one to their dice pools does not effect them in the long run, because they have more people then I do. I have my one dude. I get 4 damage, that's huge. I can't continue to fight much longer if I take another one of those. Bad guys? Just open the clown car and pop out more gangers, guards, cops, ect. The modifier the bad guys get is mitigated by their numbers. Mine aren't. Hence why my modifiers are more detrimental to me.

Look, I guess I didn't know that counterspelling was such a confusing rules discussion. I thought it was just something I was missing in the book. I was wrong. I think I'll just stay away from the skill entirely. It sounds like a great idea, but there's too much rules lawyering going on to make it fun or effective to use. And I have enough trouble trying to figure out recoil compensation on more then one simple action with machine pistols with 3 points of comp in the rain while jumping over a lazy dog in Seattle on a Tuesday. I'm going to hurt myself trying to figure out the effective way to use counterspelling at this point.

What Falconer and the others stated is how most groups run it. I believe there's some ambiguous text that actually makes my interpretation the pure-add-none-else RAW, but RAW games are not necessarily the most fun. I only argue RAW because RAW is the baseline of all tables - if you understand the Rules As Written you will be able to fit in and play at any table.

Also, why is your Manaball only doing 4 damage? You know you add net successes onto the Force of the spell for overall damage, right?

CrystalBlue:
Counterspelling is NOT complicated... not by a longshot. Neraph insists on inserting house rules which make it so that's all. And in the act confusing a newbie with his exotic interpretations.

It really is this simple... use a free action to declare who you're protecting in advance... occassionally refresh it as they leave and reenter your LOS. Then when they're attacked with magic they add your counterspelling dice as needed as a reaction to the attack. Straight, simple, easy to understand.

The only reason I'm bothering to still reply to this is because other newbies and similar read this and I don't want them falling for this house rule garbage Neraph keeps spewing.


Neraph
No yours is not pure add whatever RAW. It completely disregards the RAW present in the skills description to fit your weird house rules regarding action declarations. It IS possible to declare an action and not have it finish before the start of your next IP and NOT need to redeclare it or see it automatically end. It completely confuses newbies to no good ends to make things up like you do.

You insist all actions aren't actions and counterspelling is somehow different than other similar actions despite their parallels. You pull things out of thin air in actions section which the actions section never once states either explicitly or implicitly.


If I cast 'ignite' on you since you insist I'm noting more than a troll.... in the first action I use up a complex to cast the spell. Assuming it's successful and it has a drain of 2 (force 5). The action does NOT end at the end of the IP nor at the start of my next action phase... in fact it extends over all my actions for the next 4 combat turns! At that point it's permanent and ends automatically. The initial ACTION of casting includes the sustain... and can be aborted with a free action.

Counterspelling is no different. You do an action to start it... so long as the conditions are met it's valid. It has nothing to do with that's how others do it. It's because that's what the rules state, how it's been run since the beginning, how it's been described and handled by powers that be. Why is it done this way, because the rules for doing it on page 185 say so. As well as the list of magical actions at the start of the section listing the free action. There is the one example which disproves your weak assertion that a skill must end and be redeclared every action.

You can cite nowhere where anything I've stated is not so. I have cited plenty including that pesky 4th paragraph you always ignore because it's so inconvenient to you. I've pointed out parallel wording elsewhere in the magic section. You merely invent an additional requirement that is never listed in the section then impose it. (I can invent new requirements which still meet RAW as well... because RAW doesn't say they're not needed... that doesn't mean they're not house rules). RAW sets up the minimum action (the initial declaration) which meets the needs to add counterspelling as a reaction.

actually, specifically, it doesn't say it must be sustained, redeclared every turn, or otherwise. It doesn't nail it down explicitly.

It says "declare counterspelling prior to the spell countered, unless you declared Delay Action" (I'm paraphrasing),
It says counterspelling does not get used up, nor does it cause drain.
It says it ends if the declared counterspell target(s) breaks line-of-sight with the mage.
It says a mage can always use counterspelling to defend herself (no declare) UNLESS surprised.
It says a mage who is actively counterspelling can count ILLUSION or DETECTION magic they are unaware of.

other than teamwork/multiple attacker variants, this is ALL IT SAYS, unfortunately. What Falconer says is true, nowhere does it ever say you must redeclare counterspelling every turn. Déjà vu, n'est–ce pas?

At the end of the day? Checking with your GM and talking with them may answer the specifics left out of the above much faster.

Kischach, but it *DOES* say that it lasts as long as the counterspeller cares to make it last. The sentence immediately after it is not used up.


This is one of the big changes from prior editions actually. Priorly, the mage would need to declare... spend dice from his spell pool (a limited resource, so counterspelling would be used up) to counterspell anything. The net result was that no mages ever did it! There weren't defenses against magic except the classic geek the mage first...

The only people who suffer from Neraph's rules changes are the other party members as most mages I know wouldn't bother protecting them under his contortion of house rules. They'd only protect themselves and not waste the actions.

Correct, but you're forgetting the second and third sentences of the Spell Defense section and the Combat Turn Sequence rules. You must follow the rules for Combat Turn Sequence and there is no rule in the Spell Defense section that supersedes the fact that, in order to use it on others, you must declare a Free Action or Hold your action. That rule taken with the Combat Turn Sequence rules means that you must declare it every turn (because, by RAW, every Initiative Pass is handled like the first one - only results are kept, skill use declarations must be re-declared) or you do not get to use it.

And Falconer, how spells work is completely irrelevant to how skills work. They even have different names: spells and skills. The rules for them are handled in different places: skills are handled in the Skills chapter, starting on page 118 of SR4A, whereas spells are handled in the Street Grimoire on page 203, SR4A. Spells even have a specific rule called "sustaining" for their duration, which is completely nonexistent in the rules for Counterspelling, much less Spell Defense. They are not analogous and cannot be used as examples of how you want Spell Defense to function.

And please stop calling an adherence to the Combat Turn Sequence a House-Rule. Does that mean that your tables don't follow the rules for Combat Turns?

No I'm not forgetting them, they're non-operative if the defense is already declared. Because the rules state that the defense is not dropped until the magician wills it. (you conveniently keep ignoring that part. It's the only way you can even attempt to make the argument is to ignore it). The sentences only cover contingent counterspelling... I delay an action in a fluid situation where people are moving in and out of LOS so that I can declare as needed when the need arises.


Then you invent mechanics in the initiative & actions sections. That's why it's house rules. Not even grey. You're not adhering to the combat turn sequence. An action can go for longer than one action phase and continue while you do other things. Nowhere in the section does it state your actions magically end... some of them have things which keep going afterwards. You can't pick and choose and say counterspelling is completely different than other actions simply because it's magic. You can only do it because the skill description on p185 says so. It reads like other skills which go on for as long as the character cares to maintain (capture wirelss signal, matrix perception, spell sustaining, counterspelling, foci activation, take aim....)

Okay, not going to let you use these two logical fallacies any longer.

1) The rules state that it is not dropped until the magician decides to end it - with what action? How? By what I've stated, all the magician would have to do is to stop spending his Free Action to end Spell Defense. By yours, there's no action to end it whatsoever.

2) I'm not inventing a new mechanic. The rules state you must declare skills to use and then spend the appropriate action to use them. All I'm saying is that, every turn, you must spend a Free Action for Spell Defense (you know, since you must declare your actions for that phase as per the rules for the Combat Turn Sequence). The rule that it is not used up does in no way contradict what I'm saying.

And, for the last time, you cannot use spells or equipment as an analog for skill use. Spell sustaining and foci work under their own specific rules and are in different sections of the rulebook for a reason. Matrix Perception, Take Aim, and Capture Wireless Signal actually end up benefiting my standpoint - that each skill is defined how it is used by the appropriate section of the book and still follows the Combat Turn Sequence. By the way, Matrix Perception, Take Aim, and Capture Wireless Signal are all single-use skills that you must declare again if you want to use them again, poor choices for your argument of "it works 'till I stop it." And really, thinking about it even more, Take Aim isn't even a skill anyways; it is a Simple Action that can be used during a Combat Turn Sequence.

This truly is simple rules comprehension and mechanical knowledge.

1. the way you decide to end it is you declare yourself as the only one being protected with another free action. You're inventing things and being wilfully dense making up houserules like you always do.

2. Yes you are; you're houseruling a new requirement. You don't declare skills. You declare actions... those actions then invoke skills as needed. Many of those skills as per their descriptions will keep working over multiple IP's without further need to redeclare every action phase. Nowhere in that section does it ever once state that actions declared previously cease and desist at the end of the IP or in your new action phase.

You cannot pick and choose that some actions are fine and others are not. All actions declared using those rules must comport to the same rules. Counterspelling is no different than logging into a drone in that aspect. Both are declared, and then you turn to whatever page describes that action and do it. Sense and making sense never enter into it (it's magic... it doesn't need to make sense).


That's why I will not let you get away with telling newbies that your warped house rules are the way the rules are written. Because they're not.

You've invented this and added it into the rules. Nowhere in that section does it state that this is a legal action. The only legal action is spending a Free Action to declare Spell Defense on a number of targets in your LoS.


Name one please.


That's your misguided opinion. A greater rules-lawyer than I has already stated that I have a legitimate standpoint.

Regardless, the one sentence that you hold dear to does not supersede the requirement of the second and third sentences.

I got news... Toturi is not a rules lawyer. Never has been on the board. Normally doesn't get involved. You're no rules lawyer either. You ignore large stretches of rules regularly because 'they don't make sense' or they're inconvenient.

Muspellsheimr, now he was a rules lawyer to have fun with. We had some great back and forths. Too bad he's no longer active.


1. I declare my free action to declare protection. That declaration does not include you. Not houseruling... not even controversial. By failing to include you in the declaration I've also voiced my desire to no longer sustain the effect on you. (as long as I'm willing)

It's not house ruling, it's 100% in line with the rules as written. No additions, no ignoring any sentence anywhere in the entire section. Unlike you who chooses to ignore sentences which don't fit your needs.


2. simple action to activate automatic matrix perception. sniff network traffic. cast spell (step 7 - conveniently named, "determine ongoing effects"). .... It doesn't matter why, whether it's matrix or real.



The second and third sentences you love so much... do not state that the effect once declared ends. They simply state that a magician can delay his action and still get the counterspelling off. He must do so before the other mage casts though. (so declaring concurrent action under delay actions is not good enough). Your reading in fact requires completely ignoring such plain phrases as 'IF COUNTERSPELLING WAS NOT DECLARED IN ADVANCE, then...." Everything after the then is contingent on it not being declared in advance. So long as this requirement is met, the second is inoperative. That's what I mean by you twisting words into an unrecognizable mesh and ignoring later bits in the same section which make everything coherent.

Easy: The Log On Action for Hackers...
Must you redeclare it every pass, as you claim? Or is it continuous until you Log Off (or are forcibly disconnected) as Falconer claims?

I, for one, agree with Falconer on this. You declare ACTIONS, not SKILL use. The ACTION for Counterspelling is pretty cut-and-dried (It is there until you change it, re-assign it, or the target loses it), as far as I (and many others) am concerned.

I do rules lawyer, if only to keep my rules lawyery SOTA. Somewhat along the lines of a judge is a lawyer kind of way.

What I concern myself with is the RAW. If someone fucks with my RAW (yes, it is mine, all mine, mwahahaha! But usually I am happy to share ), then I get twisted all out of shape. House ruling is ok as long as you acknowledge it as such.

I have already said my piece on this issue.

Log On? "This requires no test..." Not a good example of a skill use that is continuous. Intercept Traffic is a single action - not continuous (you do the one Test and get access to the traffic). Making a Matrix Perception Test is different than running an Analyze program. Spellcasting is not a continuous skill use - it is a skill that creates a continuous effect, which is already a poor example as I've explained before (spells specifically have a duration in their rules called Sustained).

Now I will cede that I should not have said you declare skill use. You do declare actions. However, the actions you take that involve skills are determined by their description, in which case my argument still stands. It is a Free Action to declare Spell Defense (SR4A, page 185, Spell Defense, first paragraph, second sentence). If you do not declare Spell Defense and spend a Free Action you must have delayed your action otherwise you can not protect anyone else with Spell Defense (SR4A, page 185, Spell Defense, first paragraph, third sentence). Falconer can quote rules improperly all he wants but the section he based his last argument on was taken out of context and he completely ignored the preceding sentence to arrive at his conclusion.

Really? You are the king of simply ignoring things that you do not like in the text, Neraph.

It is A Free Action to declare Spell defense IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO. Falconer has done a great job of showing this in the text, already. It is your refusal to even acknowledge the portions of the text that he has quoted that has brought us to this point...

As For Log ON, it does have an action if you are Hacking (Pretty sure I indicated LOG ON for HACKING in Original Post above, since legitimate Users do not Hack). Perhaps I should have said HACKING instead of LOG ON. Still, the point holds. I Hack an Account. That does not mean that I am continucously Hacking an Account once I have acquired access. I just have access at that point.

I am not ignoring that. That section of the text immediately follows the section that states you must spend a Free Action. Let me try it again:


A basic course of English comprehension would teach you that that third sentence is directly referring to the preceding sentence. You must spend a Free Action for Spell Defense. If you don't, you cannot use it to protect others with unless you delayed your action. This does in no way hamper my argument; instead, my argument is based on those two sentences, as they plainly state that without spending your Free Action then you cannot use Spell Defense on others. This also does not violate the Duration Clause ("Counterspelling is not 'used up'... continues... until the magician decides to end it.") in this way: when you declare Spell Defense and spend your Free Action, it lasts as stated until your next action. When you decide to not spend a Free Action to declare Spell Defense (first paragraph, second sentence) then your team does not get the benefit of it unless you delay your action (first paragraph, third sentence). In this way you decide to end it by not spending the action required to use it (fourth paragraph).

Simple really.

And quite wrong. Nowhere does it state that you have to declare it every IP. In fact, it does state that it lasts until you the mage decide to end it. How do you end it? By using your free action to change the list and remove one or all members from it.

In the combat rules it states that you must declare your attack every IP. On page 185 it says nothing of the such for counterspelling. In those sentences that you continuously quote, show where it says that this must be done every IP. You can't because it doesn't say that. Therefore once you declare it, it continues until you decide to end it... by spending a free action to change the list to none.

Very simple really... unless you try to read between the lines when there is nothing there to read.

Indeed Forgarn... And this has been the exact same thing that Falconer has been saying as well. Neraph just does not like that, so he creates other interpretations.