the dikote might if nothing else

Vaevictis, you'll get used to it on DS. Welcome to the fun of SR (nothing makese sense).

Whether Doc's actually in favor of those rules or not, he is correct. Per the rules, they can pick up anything, magnetic or not. You don't have to like the rules. You're free to change them if they're so goddamn stupid they make your brain hurt (you wouldn't be the first to go through this), but that is what the canon rules are.

It makes sense, if you can leave behind any preconceived notion or prior idea about how something should work and accept that that's how things work in the SR world.

Just because you have been living in a decimal world doesn't mean that there can't be a binary world.

Yeah, SR makes lots of sense if you assume that the laws of physics have been repealed in the world of Shadowrun. You see, the writers never made mistakes or wrote stupid things— oh no, they intended to create a world fully divorced from our reality in every way imaginable.

This, of course, is a good thing, if you can leave behind any preconceived notion or prior idea about how something should be good and accept that that's how things are good in the SR world.

shrug, you read it your way, I'll read it mine... at least until I see a rules clarification from an authoritative source. Even if you disagree with me on that, well, just take a look at the ceramic components option: "By making the gun mostly or entirely out of nonmetallic parts, the gunsmith can reduce the risk of detection by magnetic systems." (cc.74)

After reading that, it's obvious that MADs respond to the metal in weapons, and it is not the presence of ceramics that fools them but the absence of metals. The fact that ceramics are used is incidental; they just happen to be convenient replacements for metal because they are capable of fooling MADs and handling the stresses required in a firearm.

But whatever. Read it how you want. For what it's worth, many (if not most) stones are ceramics by modern definition (an example would be obsidian), so if you want to be a rules-lawyer, we can argue that as well. I'm not certain, but I think that diamonds qualify as a ceramic as well. So, I've got a dikoted obsidian tomahawk, mister rules lawyer. It's ceramic. Your witness.

I nominate Cray74 to write the Physics in the Shadows supplement. I will take two copies, please. One to read, and one to beat some of my idiot players over the head with (especially after I dikote it...oh wait, its paper...nevermind).

I'm considering whether to create an armored clothing generator thing or not.

As it is, between the SR3 and CC, we have alot of armor to pick and choose from. However, depending on the individual characters QUI and STR to some part, I sometimes want to have more fluent armor distribution.

As in, if I look for a suit that gives 4/4, I don't want to bother with finding that specific armor, I'd rather have a table that shows me that Impact armor above 2 requires semi obvious plating, how it affects availability and price etc.

I'll try to whip something up later this afternoon. Based on the existing armors in SR3 and CC, I'll stick to the canon parameters, but open up for a wider range of different outfits.

sota63.99: "Magnetic anomoly detectors detect metallic substances." In the absense of metallic substances, MADs do not work. Canon, yes?

cc.8: "The blade of an authentic tomahawk is still chiseled from stone." Not metal. Canon.

The only question at this point is -- what is the haft made from? Well, I suppose this isn't canon, but it's an authentic tomahawk, so it's made of wood, and the blade is bound to it with leather strips.

Not metal. Can't be detected by a MAD.

"By making the gun mostly or entirely out of nonmetallic parts, the gunsmith can reduce the risk of detection by magnetic systems..." (cc.74)

"... composed entirely of polyresin and cannot be detected by magnetic anomaly detectors (MADs)." (cc.16)

"Magnetic Anomaly Detectors are used to detect weapons and concentrations of metal..." (sr3.293)

"Magnetic anomaly detectors detect metallic substances. In order to detect a weapon or other metal item..." (sota63.99)

Any kind of common sense interpretation of these passages would support the understanding that MADs detect only metallic weapons. The problem isn't in the rules in this case, it's in the language used to describe the rules which permit multiple interpretations.

The phrase "Magnetic Anomaly Detectors are used to detect weapons and concentrations of metals" can clearly be interpreted two ways -- that it detects weapons independently of concentrations of metals or that it detects weapons BECAUSE of the concentrations of metal in them. When you include the "magnetic anomaly detectors", a reasonable person would say, "Ah hah! They clearly meant the second, not the first."

"In order to detect a weapon or other metal item..." further reinforces this interpretation. They use "weapon or OTHER metal item", which clearly suggests that the weapon is understood to ALSO be a metal item.

On cc.74, we further see the authors reinforcing the notion that it is the METAL that MADs detect, not the weapons -- otherwise, reducing the metal content to zero would NOT prevent the system from detecting the weapon.

You say that the rules are quite clear that MADs detect non-metallic items, but I have yet to see any passages that CLEARLY indicate -- without contradiction -- that they do. A common sense reading of the above passages would lead the reader to conclude that MADs cannot detect non-metallic weapons.

Read it the other way if you want, that's your prerogative. Me, I'll stick to the common sense way.

I can't believe you had to spell this out in such detail. Why did it matter?

No problem. Sometimes I think people are purposefully obtuse to get a rise out of others.

Being literal about rules is one thing, taking it to an extreme is another.

Further, just got a response from a Fan Pro guy (Rob Boyle, look on the FAQs/Errata page):

"By definition, MADs detect ferrous metals. It's not going to pick up a
ceramic knife, for example ... but other search techniques/scans might."

FWIW. Does that count as canon?

Where exactly did you get that? I can't find that on either the FAQ or the Errata.

I emailed the guy directly. There's an address on the bottom of the FAQ page.

You mean you emailed info@shadowrunrpg.com? You might want to reference this thread: The ShadowFAQ thread Most of the time, it aint Rob.

shrug, it was signed Rob Boyle in the email, but I guess ShadowFaq could be doing that. I dunno.

Either way, I think my argument is reasonable, and a guy who responds to fans regarding rules clarifications says that MADs detect weapons by detecting the metals within them.

Might not be good enough for you, but it certainly meets the burden of proof I require.

1) I didn't say that the Lined Coat or Holster would help, I was just using it as all part of the same example. The Hold-Out is still more difficult to detect with a MAD scanner than the PAC even if it did have Ceramic Components (since its Concealability against a MADS would be 4, versus the 9 of the Hold-Out). But if you can't quite wrap your head around that, change the PAC to a Sniper Rifle and you have the exact same situation. Better? Good.

2) You are wrong. MAD scanners pit their rating against the Concealability of a weapon, unless that weapon specifically has rules excepting it from that case (such as with the SA Puzzler, or a custom weapon with Ceramic Components). The amount of metal in the object has jack-all to do with whether it shows up on a MAD scanner, even for non-weapons. A pair of mostly plastic Smartshades (Conceal 0) will show up more brightly on a MAD scanner than an all-metal Knife (Conceal 8), even if you have those Smartshades tucked into a pocket of your Lined Coat.

The materials an object are made of have little revelancy with MAD scanners by the rules, unless the rules for the specific item state otherwise, especially with weapons.

3) If it was just a matter of saying that a weapon was invisible to MADS because they were made out of some other material, that's all someone would have to say for most any weapon. "Oh yeah, my Sword is mostly made out of, uhm, other stuff. Plasteel or something, yeah. So the MAD scanner can't pick it up. Go me!"

Do you do that on purpose?

What? Point out how the rules work in a discussion about said rules even if I don't agree and have more house rules in play than God himself? Yes.

Did it ever occur to you, perhaps, that the concealability of those hold-out weapons might silently include the fact that they inherently contain very little metal by virtue of their tiny size and design? That, by virtue of their very tiny size, they might have a lesser magnetic signature? That the metals they use to fit everything into that small package and to achieve the lower weight might have a lesser magnetic singature?

Gee, imagine that. There is actual real world justification for this. Metal detectors (aka MADs) detect changes in a magnetic field; when an object passes through the field, it may affect the field. The magnitude of the effect is primarily dependant upon the volume of the object and it's permeability. Smaller object, smaller effect. Smaller permeability, smaller effect -- ie, heavy pistols might need a rugged metal like steel to manage the forces involved, but a holdout might only need perhaps aluminium, which iirc has a lower permeability.

As far as the sniper rifle with two levels of ceramic components being easier to detect than a hold-out weapon with none... all that tells you is that even WITH two levels of ceramic components, the sniper rifle has a higher magnetic signature. That's not entirely suprising (not to me, anyway) given that a sniper rifle starts out with what, 16-40 times the mass of the 9 concealability holdout pistol?

And, if "The amount of metal in the object has jack-all to do with whether it shows up on a MAD scanner" as you say, then why does cc.74 say, "By making the gun mostly or entirely out of nonmetallic parts, the gunsmith can reduce the risk of detection by magnetic systems (in reference to MADs)?"

Out of curiousity, where does it say smartshades have zero concealability? I've actually been looking for a stat on them. As far as I can tell, they're unlisted -- they're mentioned in passing under goggles, but no stats are given.

(PS: If you didn't mean that the coat or holster would help, then why do you keep mentioning them?)

The point is that it doesn't matter. The difficulty used to spot someone carrrying the weapon directly applies to how much difficulty a MAD scanner has of picking it up by the rules, even if the item is made of the most ferrous metal ever, or whether or not some of them are made out of wood and stone.

By your take, no criminal should ever have to worry about transporting any melee weapon since they can just say they're made out of a non-ferrous material and be done with it -- but that's not how the rules for them work. A staff, a tomahawk, and a knife will all set off a MAD scanner regardless of what they're made of, and they will set it off in that exact order of detectability.

Smartshades have the same stats as Smartgoggles, except that they cost twice as much. Their stats are in the SR3 sourcebook in the section with Laser Sights and Concealable Holsters (I don't have the book handy at the moment).

Whatever. I maintain that MADs cannot detect non-metallic items based upon my interpretation, my citations and the response from a Fan Pro employee whose job it is to respond to such questions. Further arguing over the wording of the rules isn't going to make a difference unless one of us can come up with something new.

And by my take, no criminal should ever have to worry about transporting any non-metallic melee weapon ... so long as security is only using MADs for inspection. A staff, a tomahawk and a ceramic knife will NOT set off a MAD if they're not made of metal, based upon my more reasonable interpretation. But there ARE other security systems that would be capable of detecting non-metallic objects -- cyberware scanners, for example, use other methods of detection such as ultrasound (sota63.100) which WILL pick up non-metallic objects.

<just smacks his forehead>

Its not that its not canon, its just not in accordance with the rules as printed.

Also, no security is only using MADs even today. Even America's - before 9-11, notoriously weak - security measures at places like airports have picked up, though I hear those in Europe are, for the most part, still a tad more paranoid.

The see-through device is reality already, btw. I don't see why it should not be used 60 years in the future.

And finally, there's always the good old physical examination by customs officials.

No, it is when you mix and match passages when you get trouble. Taken as a whole, the rules can be taken to say anything. When you take a piece from CC and a piece from SR3 and another piece from yet another place, you can have the rules say anything you want it to.

A common sense reading of the rules will result in my interpretation. From my point of view, it's your special olympics style reading of the rules that isn't "canon.

How do you know that something non-metallic is completely not-metallic? A tomahawk head can be made from ferrite. Does the rules state that? Does common sense tell you stone is stone and must be completely non-metallic? The only 2 weapons that are explicitly stated to be undetectable by MADs are the Puzzler and Infiltrator or any gun with level 3 Ceramic components.

Just as a side note, the current level of tech, we have something like MAD's (airport scanners you walk through) they cannot detect small metallic objects covered by your body (hair barrett under your hand, etc) your own magnetic field is strong enough to fool them in the pre-9/11 cettings used. now they are faily jacked up to the point that too much amalgam filling material in your teeth calls for an armed guard and a strip search (hyperbole before someone starts jacking that statement up)
Point is, a small object is conveivably masked by interference from your body's electromagnetic field. However, how or why a magnetic anomoly detector would be able to detect a non-metallic weapon is beyond me. Now, given what we know of the next generation of body scanners comming out, MAD's will seem like a distant memory as they will be able to detect objects of any density other than your body. So every coin, fingernail clipper and CIA letter opener will be spotted.
Though to be fair, Doc Funk was right on one aspect, the mechanics of MAD scanners attempting to find your gun, they do use the concealability because that's the only mechanic in the game for searching for a weapon or other object. (personally, I'd like to see modifiers based on weapon class as the bigger the weaon, the more likely it is to show up)

This argument reminds me why I usually play mages...hard to disarm someone when they can kill, basically, with their minds.

I know MADs detect explosives as well as metal, but I doubt it would a ceramic knife. If it did then it would detect those ceramic guns aswell.

I thought it was the chem sniffers that detected the explosives (including the propellant in bullets) not MADs

Thought Chemsniffers were built into the MAD. Could be wrong but I'm sure I read that.

They are detailed in the same entry, and can be installed in the same areas, but they are not necessarily the same device.