It's hardly worse than any of the other outlandish positions we've defended here. We're all guilty of that from time to time. C'mon, remember that heated thread where you insisted that throwing away the instructions should give you a TN bonus to B/R skills?

That's one thing that bothered me. What's the point of optical magnificatin then, if electronic mag. works exactly the same for all purposes except magic, which doesn't have range modifiers anyway?

Why is that such a sin? I swear, you're completely and utterly allergic to being wrong about anything.

I don't want to drag out that old thread, but feel free to look it up along with the 8 million others that involve your positions evolving in response to comment and criticism. It is normal to do this. It doesn't admit weakness.

Well, no. Not at all.

But anyway, it does seem extremely illogical to me to apply cover modifiers if you don't apply range modifiers. What does cover mean? Smaller target. What does longer range mean? Smaller target.

I always took spells like Manabolt to mean you were targetting the aura of your victim...locking on, as it were, not just throwing something out and aiming...the case is different, of course, with spells like Flamethrower...and I fully support cover applying there, of course. But the two spells types are very different.

I thought having magnification allowed you to cast spells on things farther away that you normally couldn't see with your otherwise naked eye.

The rules as I remember them were that a mage can hit anything that he can see not modified by electronics. So digital systems couldn't be used, but casting on a target that you can see because of a pair of binocs using lenses to amplify light was acceptable As were cyber eyes, because they are "part" of the mage because he paid for them with Essence. It wasn't for modifiers, it was more for the ability to see things farther away

On a completely unrelated topic, i'm curious when you'll next be responding in this thread.

Why bother? The people who had a clue were able to figure out what I meant despite my crappy communication (and math) skills.

And no, a Ranged Combat Attack test is not required. Sorcery functions in that regard for most elemental attack spells.

Really, i thought it might have something to do with the fact that you didn't actually use a technique like "Stop-Think-Post", then when in too deep couldn't bring yourself to admit it. But onto topic....

I thought that you made a ranged combat attack with your Sorcery skill dice. Hmmm, i'll have to go back and reread that text.

EDIT: ...for the Clout spell.

Er ya, it wasn't me that cared about the conversation of the subject....even though i actually started the thread. Remember; Stop-Think-Post, it's about more than "communication".

EDIT: I did get the gist, that a good number of people were still quite confused about WTF you were talking about. But given your "logic" that was completely understandable. I personally don't even really care about you view on that subject since you obviously slipped past the point of reason.

But it's nice to know that you're at least admitting to your trolling. "When are you going to reply to this topic? Not that you should bother 'cause I'm just trolling and don't care what you have to say. Teehee."

Zigger? No. Trying to point out Zazen has a VERY good point. I really don't like dragging this thread off-topic, which i guess means this will be my last post here, but frankly you seem to be oblivious to what you do. You project your mistakes onto others, labeling people that disagree with you as "dumbasses".

But i guess you'll just slot me into the dumbass catagory. OK, i realise you likely did that some time back on-or-before you were embarrased by shoving your foot down your throat (no need for a link, you know the thread, it's etched into the bullet you carry for me) but at least i'm in good company. I also realise it very likely that you'll continue your attemps to try piss on me at any turn you can, no matter how illogical you need to be to do it. But i thought i might mention that i will be laughing at you, just so you know, until you actually decide make discussions about that instead of about some sort of wang swinging contest. *shrug*

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.....

EDIT: Edit labels, not just for breakfast anymore. No need to quote your addendum, as this point actually addresses that.

Ehhhh... I don't particularly like these modifiers, as they really don't follow the same rules as the weapon ranges on p. 111. Also they seem to unfairly penalize the sorcerer at longer ranges; even at maximum range normal weapons only differ from their Short range TNs by 5 (4-9), and here the difference is +8 or more. Personally I think the sorcerer'd be better served with four ranges, much like other weapons: a "Short" range at +0 modifier, a "Medium" range at +1, a "Long" range at +2, and an "Extreme" range at +5.

Feel free to post a link to an example.

I feel a lot better knowing that other people notice this stuff. Thanks.

A quick search from just the last couple of weeks:
Ambidexterity, adepts, and off-hand weapons
Problems with quickened spells

While I agree they're far from flawless, I like the concept. I do agree it should be kept more in line with the way guns are currently handled, but spell casters should still be getting harsh penalties here.

As a side note that is kind of related, I'm just curious: does anyone think that allowing aiming actions equal to skill (instead of half skill, as it is now) would make things more balance in terms of range between magic and guns? A skill of six is pretty fucking good, after all, that that is 9 seconds of aiming for the average human. Maybe make it progressive and require two simple actions for each point of aiming after half.

[edit]

Lilt, that cool visual effect would be the mage exploding as all fire from the enemy suddenly turned on him.

Then again, there's the Enhance Aim spell