[Tagz]

Ok, I have to admit defeat on THAT point. 

But the rest still stands.

[Otakusensei]

Just like if your drone's Sensor rating is high enough, it can resist an Improved Invisibility spell.

Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold (p. 183). They are resisted by Intuition + Counterspelling (if any); non-living devices do not get a resistance test.

Yes, that's what I was talking about. Since Drones/Computers fall into the 5+ Threshold, I usually let the Sensor rating of the drone (or Sensor + Clearsight) to provide the threshold target that the Improved Invisibility must overcome. They don't get to resist with dice since their dogbrains aren't smart enough to take into account noise and smell in conjunction with sight.

You're either using house rules or you're getting spell resistance mixed up with the perception test.  Anyone observing the target of the spell gets to roll Intuition + Counterspelling (if they have it) against the original net hits of the spell to resist it as normal.  As long as the net hits meet or exceed the OR of a technological device, any visual sensors it has will not see the target of Improved Invisibility.  Devices get no resistance to the spell.

A device that has had it's OR defeated can then try to detect the target of the spell in a perception test, and that would function as you described above.  However anyone shooting at the target of the spell who has not resisted it, including devices that have become aware of the target but have ORs less than the original net hits of the casting, suffer a -6 penalty for attacking a hidden target.  Perceiving that the character is there and defeating the Improved Invisibility are two different things.

This is important because if a drone that has had it's OR defeated fails to get 4 successes on it's Sensor + Clearsight against an attacker with Improved Invisibility on, it suffers from Defender Unaware of Attack and gets no defense.  Since Autosofts are limited to rating 4 and the Sensor rating of vehicles caps out at 6, drones on their own are prone to being taken out by mages.  It's one of the reasons I liked the advanced processing mod from War!, it made them less susceptible to this type of thing without sending the Sensor and Clearsight ratings through the roof.

[FastJack]

The Object Resistance table on p. 183 shows that the typical threshold for Computers/Drones/"complicated" objects has a threshold rating of 5+.

Since your average security drone has good sensors and possibly Clearsight autosoft, I house-rule it that the threshold is equal to the ratings of the drone's sensors and autosoft instead of just saying they need 5 or 6 hits. Yes, it is a house-rule, and I thought I made it clear in my second post that it was. I realized I wasn't clear about this in the original post, and I attempted to make it more clear in regards to that.

I look at it that if the mage can't get more hits than the drone's combined ratings, then something in the nature of the spell tipped the drone off. But since most drones average the 5 or 6 (3 Sensor/2-3 Clearsight), then it comes out about the same as the OR Table's 5+ guideline.

[Otakusensei]

The Object Resistance table on p. 183 shows that the typical threshold for Computers/Drones/"complicated" objects has a threshold rating of 5+.

Since your average security drone has good sensors and possibly Clearsight autosoft, I house-rule it that the threshold is equal to the ratings of the drone's sensors and autosoft instead of just saying they need 5 or 6 hits. Yes, it is a house-rule, and I thought I made it clear in my second post that it was. I realized I wasn't clear about this in the original post, and I attempted to make it more clear in regards to that.

I look at it that if the mage can't get more hits than the drone's combined ratings, then something in the nature of the spell tipped the drone off. But since most drones average the 5 or 6 (3 Sensor/2-3 Clearsight), then it comes out about the same as the OR Table's 5+ guideline.

I guess that's where I'm not understanding your house rule, because Sensor and Clearsight shouldn't ever factor into spell resistance.  Also, I know what OR is.  The 4 I was using was off the Perception table listed under Using Stealth Skills, which are the mechanics you would use to determine if some character is aware of another.

I don't know if you were going for a simplification of the rules, but you're mashing two different tests together.

[Chaemera]

Otaku,

FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.

But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.

[Nomad Zophiel]

Ok, I have to admit defeat on THAT point. 

But the rest still stands.

The major advantage, as I see it, is the ability to use ritual magic to designate a target of unknown location and unleash hell on him.
An example that is admittedly the logical extreme:
Take a hypothetical terrorist leader whose face and voice are well known. The entire Corporate Court is looking for him but he keeps ducking in and out of caves and hideouts in the middle east. This has been going on for. . .let's say 9 years. Then, on his orders, his organization pisses off an important dragon, one with significant corporate holdings Damien Knight. He calls the one Mage on KE staff with a radar implant and Designate, who overcasts a force 9-10 Designate ritual using an appropriate ritual link. An hour or so later our terrorist leader lights up with a Signal 9 IR designator. An hour after that. . .pick one: Cruise missiles guided by satellite obliderate the site, a corporate strike team comes in to take prisoners, etc. IF the leader has a mage to help with counterspelling or a rating 10 jammer/Thermal Masking bunker then he might survive. It has the potential to make every military engagement a pinpoint engagement since you can target your objective precisely. Sure it requires a spell, an implant and a specific metamagic but what big company would go without one, regardless of the cost?

(note to self: this makes for an interesting ex-Corp mage character concept)

As a normal spell, it has the same benefit as most spells. You can walk in anywhere, through any sensor, and still have your designator on you.

[Tagz]

Ok, I have to admit defeat on THAT point. 

But the rest still stands.

The major advantage, as I see it, is the ability to use ritual magic to designate a target of unknown location and unleash hell on him.
An example that is admittedly the logical extreme:
Take a hypothetical terrorist leader whose face and voice are well known. The entire Corporate Court is looking for him but he keeps ducking in and out of caves and hideouts in the middle east. This has been going on for. . .let's say 9 years. Then, on his orders, his organization pisses off an important dragon, one with significant corporate holdings Damien Knight. He calls the one Mage on KE staff with a radar implant and Designate, who overcasts a force 9-10 Designate ritual using an appropriate ritual link. An hour or so later our terrorist leader lights up with a Signal 9 IR designator. An hour after that. . .pick one: Cruise missiles guided by satellite obliderate the site, a corporate strike team comes in to take prisoners, etc. IF the leader has a mage to help with counterspelling or a rating 10 jammer/Thermal Masking bunker then he might survive. It has the potential to make every military engagement a pinpoint engagement since you can target your objective precisely. Sure it requires a spell, an implant and a specific metamagic but what big company would go without one, regardless of the cost?

(note to self: this makes for an interesting ex-Corp mage character concept)

As a normal spell, it has the same benefit as most spells. You can walk in anywhere, through any sensor, and still have your designator on you.

Ok, see where you're going with this one.  I like the idea, but... there are a few questions that as a GM I'd ask my player trying to do this.

But wouldn't the missile need to detect the designator before it can lock on?  Just having the designator spell effect on the target does not guarantee a hit, does it?  I honestly don't know, I haven't seen the full spell description.

How does the missile know where in the country to search?  Shot from orbit?  Does your missile have the sensor capabilities to find the designator from that distance?  At the very least they'd have to put that missile within 10km to possibly picked up by a signal 6 sensor on the missile.  Even with a ridiculous signal 9 range sensor you'd still need the missile to be within 400km before achieving lock on, assuming the spell functions like a regular designator and doesn't automatically control the missile (again, haven't read).

If the man is inside a cave, will it be able to lock onto the designator signal through the rock?  There's no mention of penetration of the type of signal used in designating.  The radar isn't UWBR, it's just standard radar reflection, then there's infrared and microwave.  I don't know about this one.

If you were able to ritually spellcast on the terrorist couldn't you just use ignite or powerbolt on him in the first place?  Or control thoughts and have him call the Corporate Court with his location and node passcodes to shut down their systems?

I have to admit, the idea does work better if all you could get for the ritual link is to an object you know to be at the location.  But then, the spell is illusion correct?  Not Indirect Combat?  Then hitting an inanimate object requires beating it's OR.  Still, I guess that works, provided the missile can get within range to lock on to it.

I feel sorta sad.  I'd like this spell to be feasible.  I'm just not seeing it as much more then a fringe spell.

[Tagz]

He calls the one Mage on KE staff with a radar implant and Designate, who overcasts a force 9-10 Designate ritual using an appropriate ritual link. An hour or so later our terrorist leader lights up with a Signal 9 IR designator.

Just noticed this.  The fact that you can ritually cast the spell without needing to percieve the target but still needing the prerequisite cyber makes the concept of requiring the cyber even more bizarre.

[Nomad Zophiel]

But wouldn't the missile need to detect the designator before it can lock on?  Just having the designator spell effect on the target does not guarantee a hit, does it?  I honestly don't know, I haven't seen the full spell description.

Yes, fire control has to lock onto it. However, Signal 8+ will reach satellites and signal 6 will reach 10km. The former can be detected by a big company anywhere on earth, the latter is quite sufficient for a team that knows the target is somewhere fairly specific like Seattle. Also remember that once any of the bad guy's gear picks up the designator, its trivial to pass that information along to ALL of the available forces.

If the man is inside a cave, will it be able to lock onto the designator signal through the rock?  There's no mention of penetration of the type of signal used in designating.  The radar isn't UWBR, it's just standard radar reflection, then there's infrared and microwave.  I don't know about this one.

Again, this is based on the Signal rating. Short form is you need a jammer of Force+1 or similar resistant material. However, the moment you step outside that goes away. This is where my comment earlier about generals came from. You'd either have to be in an EM shielded bunker with wired connections to C&C or behind a sufficiently powerful mana barrier to prevent this sort of thing. A general on the field is meat.

If you were able to ritually spellcast on the terrorist couldn't you just use ignite or powerbolt on him in the first place?  Or control thoughts and have him call the Corporate Court with his location and node passcodes to shut down their systems?

Yes. Designate offers you options. You could even opt NOT to attack, just track the beacon for a while, make a note of where he stops and attack where he was.

I feel sorta sad.  I'd like this spell to be feasible.  I'm just not seeing it as much more then a fringe spell.

I actually agree that it is something of a narrow use spell. The main field use seem to be looking through binoculars and designating a target then sneaking away. Safer than having to keep pointing a laser at something. I'm not even saying that the ritual use is overpowered compared to other spells. It is, however, a serious enough threat that it has to be accounted for. I wonder, though. As pointed out, a mage assassin can use ritual casting to do any number of things just as deadly. Sure the -6 for making your own ritual link is pretty severe but it still seems like the only way high profile figures could survive long term is to either stay under wards or have combat mage bodyguards with them at all times. Designate just happened to be the spell that put that in my mind and it presents the option of backing it up with overwhelming firepower.

[Otakusensei]

Otaku,

FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.

But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.

But that is wrong, you need to read the rules.  There is a spellcasting test, and it is resisted.  Then there is an entirely separate perception test against.  Matt is basically saying that he lets his players/NPCs roll a perception check against the casting of the spell to resist it, and that is completely wrong.

It's fine if that is a house rule, but at least recognize that you are essentially cutting out an entire test and allowing mundanes and inanimate objects to resist magic with sensors.

[FastJack]

Remember, though, the designator has to remain locked onto the target until the guided weapon hits the target (Arsenal, p. 162). If the spotter loses contact with the target, the attack automatically misses and scatters with an additional 2d6 added to the scatter roll.

Satellite-based weapons are aimed using Logic + Exotic Ranged Weapon (Satellite-Based). These weapons have a scatter value of 6D6 x 20m, –50m per net hit.

As for this:

Otaku,

FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.

But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.

But that is wrong, you need to read the rules.  There is a spellcasting test, and it is resisted.  Then there is an entirely separate perception test against.  Matt is basically saying that he lets his players/NPCs roll a perception check against the casting of the spell to resist it, and that is completely wrong.

It's fine if that is a house rule, but at least recognize that you are essentially cutting out an entire test and allowing mundanes and inanimate objects to resist magic with sensors.

I am not saying they are rolling a perception check. I am saying that if the drone has a Sensor 3 and Clearsoft 2, then I'm setting the threshold to 5 hits. If it has a Sensor 4 and Clearsoft 4, then I'll set the threshold to 8 hits.

[Otakusensei]

Remember, though, the designator has to remain locked onto the target until the guided weapon hits the target (Arsenal, p. 162). If the spotter loses contact with the target, the attack automatically misses and scatters with an additional 2d6 added to the scatter roll.

Satellite-based weapons are aimed using Logic + Exotic Ranged Weapon (Satellite-Based). These weapons have a scatter value of 6D6 x 20m, –50m per net hit.

As for this:

Otaku,

FastJack didn't say anything about perception checks... He said that since the Object Resistance for a drone is 5+, as in "5 or greater", he developed a formula (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) to determine exactly what that "or greater" is. That's not even a house rule, that's a rules interpretation. I could as easily say that "5+" means you need 100 hits on your spellcasting test to affect my NPC rigger's doberman, and it would be in accordance with the RAW. He just codified it so his players wouldn't feel cheated, he can point to a method for his madness on this one.

But another way, the spellcaster makes a Spellcasting + Magic (Sensor Rating + Clearsight Rating) success test to be invisible to a drone.

But that is wrong, you need to read the rules.  There is a spellcasting test, and it is resisted.  Then there is an entirely separate perception test against.  Matt is basically saying that he lets his players/NPCs roll a perception check against the casting of the spell to resist it, and that is completely wrong.

It's fine if that is a house rule, but at least recognize that you are essentially cutting out an entire test and allowing mundanes and inanimate objects to resist magic with sensors.

I am not saying they are rolling a perception check. I am saying that if the drone has a Sensor 3 and Clearsoft 2, then I'm setting the threshold to 5 hits. If it has a Sensor 4 and Clearsoft 4, then I'll set the threshold to 8 hits.

So you're basing Object Resistance off of the ability of the sensors to do their job, part of which is software being run and has nothing to do with the Object Resistance of the drone.  Essentially pitting the drone's ability to perceive against the casting of the spell.

That sounds like using a perception check to beat a spell.

How do you determine if the drone, once the spell is resolved, has detected the target of the spell?  Do you roll Sensor + Clearsight again?

What if the mage casts a spell directly on the drone?  What do you use for Object Resistance then?  Why not just establish an OR and stick with it?

These rules are in place for a reason.  As a representative of the official forums and CGL you may want to make sure you are totally clear that you know how the rules work.  It's fine if people do their own thing, but if they change a rule they should understand how it works normally first.

[FastJack]

So you're basing Object Resistance off of the ability of the sensors to do their job, part of which is software being run and has nothing to do with the Object Resistance of the drone.  Essentially pitting the drone's ability to perceive against the casting of the spell.

Object Resistance is, by definition, how magic will interact with the technology. The more advanced the technology, the harder it is for magic to affect it and the stronger it's resistance is. So, if a corp spends a lot of money on drones to make sure no one sneaks into their compound, then they are going to use tech that is more advanced, making it harder for spells to affect it. QED, better hardware/software would improve the resistance of the object to the spell. In my opinion

That sounds like using a perception check to beat a spell.

No dice are rolled by the drone/computer, so how is it a Perception test?

How do you determine if the drone, once the spell is resolved, has detected the target of the spell?  Do you roll Sensor + Clearsight again?

If the Object Resistance threshold has not been met, the drone has not detected the intruder, therefore no further rolls are needed. If, by chance, a security alarm is issued and coordinates are given to the drone for the invisible intruder and orders are given to attack, then I'd have the drone roll Sensor + Clearsight to hit the target. Same as if an NPC had failed the Resistance test and then attempted to attack where they thought the invisible target was.

What if the mage casts a spell directly on the drone?  What do you use for Object Resistance then?  Why not just establish an OR and stick with it?

Depends on the spell. If you're casting a combat spell or one that affects the structure of the drone, I may use Body + Armor. My opinion is that the 5+ is a guideline to show that those complex objects are varied because of the nature of their complexity. If you come across a doberman drone that's been armored to the max, but the corp skimped on it's sensor package, then Imp. Invisibility is the way to go. Likewise, if they paid extra to increase the doberman's sensors to spot a mosquito at 200m, but had to remove armor to get that bonus, then mages should be sending Fireballs its way.

These rules are in place for a reason.  As a representative of the official forums and CGL you may want to make sure you are totally clear that you know how the rules work.  It's fine if people do their own thing, but if they change a rule they should understand how it works normally first.

So, your opinion is that, because I am a representative of the forums and CGL, then I'm not allowed to use any house-rules in my game as I see fit. At no point have I said that my interpretation is the official company line.

Now, if you want to continue the discussion of how I house-rule my games and your opinion of my position here at the forums, you can PM me with any questions, complaints or comments. This goes for anyone else as well.

One final thing, Otaku. I'd like to point out that you're posts have disregarded items on the Terms of Service. Specifically, you're consistently forgetting #1, but you have also failed to acknowledge #5*, #6** and #7***. Any one of these violations could have resulted in warnings and bans, but we're being lenient in the application of these warnings due to the nature of the discussions here. If you want to continue breaking the ToS, then warnings will start to be sent out.


* I get you have a problem with my taking the FastJack handle. I also notice you do not have a problem with our other residents that have taken similar handles for their own. I'm letting it go this time that you're using my first name (since I do have my facebook page as my web link), but I'd prefer you didn't. If you want to call me Matt, you first have to introduce yourself (your real name) and (more importantly) earn my friendship. I respect your opinions here, and even agree with some of them, but consistently attacking me because I was made a moderator won't be tolerated going forward.

** Bringing over flamewars and such that have occurred on Dumpshock and issues that resulted from business decisions between former freelancers and CGL aren't appreciated here. Yes, they will come up in conversation because of the nature of the decisions and such, but to consistently reignite the flames at every opportunity is not constructive. Which brings us to:

*** Posts that aren't constructive. Yes, we all have thread drift, go off on tangents or even just give a +1 in support. That's not a problem as long as the poster can also add to the conversations. So far, you really haven't added much besides your opinion on Catalyst's business model.

[Otakusensei]

So you're basing Object Resistance off of the ability of the sensors to do their job, part of which is software being run and has nothing to do with the Object Resistance of the drone.  Essentially pitting the drone's ability to perceive against the casting of the spell.

Object Resistance is, by definition, how magic will interact with the technology. The more advanced the technology, the harder it is for magic to affect it and the stronger it's resistance is. So, if a corp spends a lot of money on drones to make sure no one sneaks into their compound, then they are going to use tech that is more advanced, making it harder for spells to affect it. QED, better hardware/software would improve the resistance of the object to the spell. In my opinion

That sounds like using a perception check to beat a spell.

No dice are rolled by the drone/computer, so how is it a Perception test?

How do you determine if the drone, once the spell is resolved, has detected the target of the spell?  Do you roll Sensor + Clearsight again?

If the Object Resistance threshold has not been met, the drone has not detected the intruder, therefore no further rolls are needed. If, by chance, a security alarm is issued and coordinates are given to the drone for the invisible intruder and orders are given to attack, then I'd have the drone roll Sensor + Clearsight to hit the target. Same as if an NPC had failed the Resistance test and then attempted to attack where they thought the invisible target was.

What if the mage casts a spell directly on the drone?  What do you use for Object Resistance then?  Why not just establish an OR and stick with it?

Depends on the spell. If you're casting a combat spell or one that affects the structure of the drone, I may use Body + Armor. My opinion is that the 5+ is a guideline to show that those complex objects are varied because of the nature of their complexity. If you come across a doberman drone that's been armored to the max, but the corp skimped on it's sensor package, then Imp. Invisibility is the way to go. Likewise, if they paid extra to increase the doberman's sensors to spot a mosquito at 200m, but had to remove armor to get that bonus, then mages should be sending Fireballs its way.

These rules are in place for a reason.  As a representative of the official forums and CGL you may want to make sure you are totally clear that you know how the rules work.  It's fine if people do their own thing, but if they change a rule they should understand how it works normally first.

So, your opinion is that, because I am a representative of the forums and CGL, then I'm not allowed to use any house-rules in my game as I see fit. At no point have I said that my interpretation is the official company line.

Now, if you want to continue the discussion of how I house-rule my games and your opinion of my position here at the forums, you can PM me with any questions, complaints or comments. This goes for anyone else as well.

One final thing, Otaku. I'd like to point out that you're posts have disregarded items on the Terms of Service. Specifically, you're consistently forgetting #1, but you have also failed to acknowledge #5*, #6** and #7***. Any one of these violations could have resulted in warnings and bans, but we're being lenient in the application of these warnings due to the nature of the discussions here. If you want to continue breaking the ToS, then warnings will start to be sent out.


* I get you have a problem with my taking the FastJack handle. I also notice you do not have a problem with our other residents that have taken similar handles for their own. I'm letting it go this time that you're using my first name (since I do have my facebook page as my web link), but I'd prefer you didn't. If you want to call me Matt, you first have to introduce yourself (your real name) and (more importantly) earn my friendship. I respect your opinions here, and even agree with some of them, but consistently attacking me because I was made a moderator won't be tolerated going forward.

** Bringing over flamewars and such that have occurred on Dumpshock and issues that resulted from business decisions between former freelancers and CGL aren't appreciated here. Yes, they will come up in conversation because of the nature of the decisions and such, but to consistently reignite the flames at every opportunity is not constructive. Which brings us to:

*** Posts that aren't constructive. Yes, we all have thread drift, go off on tangents or even just give a +1 in support. That's not a problem as long as the poster can also add to the conversations. So far, you really haven't added much besides your opinion on Catalyst's business model.

Hey man, I'm just trying to make sure that you know that resisting a spell, perceiving a target and attacking are all separate rolls with their own opposed tests.  Correcting what I thought was an over simplification.  You can run the game however yo want, but I know people follow the forums for rules advice and I figured I'd remind you.

Take action against me if you feel you need to.  But I think you're letting the fact that we don't seem to like each other much get in the way.

[FastJack]

Honestly, the whole "not like you" thing seems to be one-way. I'm not going to say I like you, but I don't not like you either. I only bring up the warning stuff because it feels like you're trying to make this personal when it isn't. If I read your intentions wrong, I'm sorry.