[Ninja137]

Can a mage target someone in full body armor with a polarized faceplate with a Manabolt, or does the fact that they can't actually see the person themselves not matter? How would it work if you had a Drone made to look like a person suited up with Milspec armor, wouldn't it effectively be the same? It makes sense that since you need LoS to the person, and that you can't see the actual person in full body armor, that it would not allow targeting except for Indirect Spells.

[Aryeonos]

Their aura or whatever is still visible through the armour. Though, perhaps if they had the entire suit lined with glow moss or whatever mana barrier plant it is they grow, the mage would probably not be able to target him, though he could just throw a blast spell at him to the same effect; not to mention shrub warrior might not be too effective of a combatant to really warrant it in the first place.

[Carz]

Can a mage target someone in full body armor with a polarized faceplate with a Manabolt, or does the fact that they can't actually see the person themselves not matter?

Street Magic, pg 160:
Line of Sight (LOS): The spell can target anything the caster
can physically see or assense, regardless of the distance (see p.
173, SR4). The caster may not target anything that is completely
behind cover or otherwise obscured. Since the caster only needs
to see part of the target, a Perception Test may be necessary to
see if the caster can spot enough of the target to cast. Visibility
modifiers apply to the Spellcasting Test. Note that full body
armor does not “conceal” the person within and prevent them
from being targeted.

Rules say that full body armor doesn't prevent targeting.

How would it work if you had a Drone made to look like a person suited up with Milspec armor, wouldn't it effectively be the same?

I would treat it the same, yes. It seems the intent was not to allow 'armor' to prevent magical targeting, so I don't see how the intent would be different for a drone.

There's very few drones out there that can were metahuman armor, I'm sure this won't come up too much.

[Ninja137]

It doesn't make sense, though. Someone hiding behind a thin sheet of paper that fully obscures them is untargetable by a Manaball, but a person in full body armor with a polarized faceplate can be targetted just fine despite you being unable to see ANYTHING of the actual person?

[Ninja137]

To give an example, think of it like this.

If you take a Heavy Milspec Full-Body Armor Suit which is large enough to cover you from sight so that you cannot be seen by a mage, yet he is aware of you being there, he cannot target you at all.

However, if you WEAR that same suit of armor which has a Chem Seal so that even AIR is incapable of getting in, and has a polarized facemask so he cannot see your face, he can target you perfectly fine.

That is, quite bluntly, absolutely idiotic and in need of a change. Indirect Physical Combat spells would be capable of effecting you simply because they can cause physical manifestations of things, like a massive fireball of lightning bolt. But for Direct Combat that doesn't actually travel between caster to target, and requires LoS? Hell no. That's stupid.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

Wearing it brings it into/makes it part of your aura.

[Ninja137]

Wearing it brings it into/makes it part of your aura.

Does getting inside a car enable the car to be targetted with Mana spells? Does driving it? Does rigging it? What about if it's a Technomancer doing it? What about if a Cyborg is directly hooked up to a car?

[mtfeeney = Baron]

If the car transformed into a piece of armor that you wore, sure.

[Ninja137]

If the car transformed into a piece of armor that you wore, sure.

The car would grant you additional armor if you were to be shot at while inside of it.

Like, I am all for mages being able to blow peoples brains out of their ears through armor, but it makes zero sense. Non-living/Foci things show up on the astral, albeit in a greyed out and non-detailed manner. You have a suit of armor covering you head to toe, in multiple layers of protection from various layers of armor materials, biomonitor fabrics, and other whatnot. You are not capable of being seen from the outside of this armor aside from the faceplate, which in this instance is polarized and unable to be seen through.

You, yourself, as in the actual person and aura, are incapable of being seen from the outside. Not even air molecules or chemicals can enter the atmosphere of your armor with a chem seal engages, let alone leave a large enough gap to allow visibility through. You cannot be targetted by direct spells. It doesn't make any form of sense at all. It breaks immersion entirely.

And if you're going to claim that the armor is included in an aura, please provide me with a specific page and book so that I can see it.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

Sorry, my searching skills are lacking today.  I asked a similar question a month or two ago, and this was the explanation given.  As for citing a book, why?  You're already ignoring the book, so why would citing more help?  The book says full armor doesn't prevent spell targeting.  I offered up a way for you to rationalize it.

[Ninja137]

Yet another example would be attempting to target a person in the middle of a building through a concrete wall while in the meat. You couldn't do it.

The books say that an aura radiates light on the astral and glows, and you seem to be effectively targetting the aura of a thing with Mana spells. Trying to detect the aura of a person within a suit of armor with zero openings would be like attempting to see the light of a lightbulb through three inches of solid layers armor plating. You couldn't.

[Ninja137]

Sorry, my searching skills are lacking today.  I asked a similar question a month or two ago, and this was the explanation given.  As for citing a book, why?  You're already ignoring the book, so why would citing more help?  The book says full armor doesn't prevent spell targeting.  I offered up a way for you to rationalize it.

Because your rationalization is crap. A thing doesn't make sense, so you give an answer. Answers are nice, usually. But when the answer is wrong, with zero source, with zero backup, no proof, and for all I am able to tell incorrect with the exception that the rules simply tell me that you may target a person who is effectively invisible from you, your answer is a bad answer. It would be like telling a researcher who spent his time attempting to figure out exactly how a digestive system works that it works because of magic, or that god intended it to work. Yeah, it's an answer technically, but it doesn't actually DO anything as an answer. It doesn't really answer the question.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

Here's the answer.  Street Magic, p. 160, "Note that full body armor does not "conceal" the person within and prevent them from being targeted."  A person, 100% clear answer with no rationalization.  Why does full body armor not conceal you from magic?  Because the rulebook says it doesn't.

[Ninja137]

Here's the answer.  Street Magic, p. 160, "Note that full body armor does not "conceal" the person within and prevent them from being targeted."  A person, 100% clear answer with no rationalization.  Why does full body armor not conceal you from magic?  Because the rulebook says it doesn't.

And does the rulebook make sense? No, it does not. It says that Non-Living things show up on the astral

Any non-living objects
appear as faded semblances of their physical selves, gray and lifeless,
while the auras of living things are vibrant and colorful.

Non-magical and non-living objects have only gray, lackluster
shadows rather than auras, but pick up impressions from being
in contact with living auras.

both from page 191 Shadowrun 4A. If a lightbulb was contained within a box made of four inch thick steel, the light emitted from it would not be visible from outside of the box nor would the bulb be visible, excluding the addition of a camera to the inside of the box. If an animal was placed inside of the same box, it would not be visible from the outside of the box. It would not be targetable by direct spells. There is no logical reason that the fact an item is being used for the purposes of armor and protection that it magically allows whatever is inside to be targetted from the outside. If that was the case, you would be able target people hiding inside of a concrete bunker twenty feet thick simply because you can see a corner of the building. The bunker covers your entire body from the outside world, and is being used as full body armor, so by the logic of the rules it doesn't make any sense.

In any games I were to run, or any game I was to play in, I would either change the rules or talk to the DM and houserule it because otherwise it makes absolutely zero sense. It might not be the rules as written, but it makes no sense otherwise.

[RHat]

The rule has been provided.  If you don't like the provided explanations, feel free to suggest another one.  However, your argument has a serious flaw:  You don't target the armour with a direct mana spell, but the person wearing it - specifically the person, not the aura.  Which is also way armour's not part of how you resist that spell - which is why the car example isn't remotely the same thing.

What you wear is part of what the mage perceives as "you", and thus doesn't interfere with targeting.  That sort of thing makes a difference with magic.

Note that if mana spells targeted auras, you'd have to be astrally perceiving to cast them.  This is not the case.  Further, you're suggesting a pretty terrible houserule.