[Mistwalker]

Could someone point me to where I can find the rules (if any) that deal with how a mundane/drone can attack a PC/NPC that is under the effects of an Improved Invisibility Spell or the Concealment Power of a spirit?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

We talking 6we?

If so, either way it's pretty much the same.  The hidden target is benefitting from Invisible # or Invisible (Improved) #, both of which are defined on pg. 52.

Beyond what's there: Being unable to see your opponent surely will be awarding the conditional Edge to your target.  And depending on the circumstances, the GM might even not permit the attack to be made in the first place.  Unless your attack is some kind of area attack, and/or you have circumstantial evidence of at least the correct area the target is in.  (there's empty footprints standing in that puddle, or there's a phantom void moving through the smoke, or etc)

[Mistwalker]

Sorry, yes, 6e.

So it would seem to be GM's call if the attacker does not pass the threshold needed to perceive the invisible/concealed PC/NPC, if I am understanding correctly.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yeah, if you get enough hits to meet the threshold set by #, then the invisible (improved) condition is completely resisted by the attacker. If not: GM call based on circumstances in play.

[Xenon]

In this edition it seem as if you cannot attack / that you will automatically fail ant attacks against a target you cannot see.

The invisible character will also automatically gain a tactical advantage while attacking a subject he is currently invisible to (the subject still get to take a defense test to avoid the attack and they still get to soak damage).

[Shinobi Killfist]

I can’t find any actual rule on what being invisible means but a similar effect blind 3 does what they suggest. And you are effectively completely blind to where they are. I’d probably say something like with a alternate perception test like hearing you narrow it down a bit. Maybe make a couple thresholds to determine if you are at -6 or -3.

The thing I am not sure of is tech making a perception test or OR. From the working I kind of think perception but OR seems to override a lot. Though this edition it just says often. Is it often default or often only when listed which isn’t really that often. Like chaos doesn’t have any tech resistance notes so is it OR does it not resist at all, what. For improved invisible I always thought OR shouldnt apply to this because it’s not targeting the tech it’s targeting bob. And now bob is invisible. Sensor tests would then determine if bob is spotted.

I hope in the magic book they define when OR kicks in and why. I think the indirect spells in the combat chapter are a good guide.

[Michael Chandra]

In this edition it seem as if you cannot attack / that you will automatically fail ant attacks against a target you cannot see.

The invisible character will also automatically gain a tactical advantage while attacking a subject he is currently invisible to (the subject still get to take a defense test to avoid the attack and they still get to soak damage).

I don't see any rules stating invisibility makes attacks automatically fail, so I disagree with that conclusion, unless there's some rules I missed.

[Xenon]

No direct rule. More indirect and a conscience. 6th edition have much less rules to reference. Many things are left open ended.

In previous edition you had a negative dice pool of 1 or 3 dice (that in some cases also stacked to 6 or even 10 dice) depending on if the target was visually slightly harder to see or if the target was severely harder to see. Beyond that you had the blind fire modifier of minus 6 dice when you had no idea where the target was (for example due to target 100% behind cover, due to total darkness or if target was invisible or whatever). It always felt strange (at least for me) that you could take a shot when you had no idea where the target was, but this was RAW in 5th edition. Also, in 5th edition of you cannot see the ranged attacker then you would be suffer the Unaware of Attacker situational modifier which meant no defense test is possible.

In this edition you instead seem to take a negative dice pool modifier of 3 dice or 6 dice depending on if the target is visually slightly harder to see or if the target is visually severally harder to see (no strange stacking), but if you have no idea where your target is (because you can't see [the target] at all due to for example chemicals, flashing lights, pure force of magic etc etc) then you automatically fail any test involving visibility (this last part basically replace the "blind fire" situational modifier we had in previous edition and personally I also think it makes more sense). Also, in this edition you still get to take a defense test when attacked by a ranged attacker you cannot see.

In this edition you don't actually resist the spell as you did in previous edition. In this edition you instead take a perception test (the perception test get a higher threshold if the target have the Invisible # status effect).

What I am saying is that if a potential observer fail their perception test to 'notice' the character that currently have an invisible # effect then it is impossible for the observer to visually see the target and they would automatically fail the attack.

It's not strictly RAW, but it is also not really contradicting RAW either. And, maybe more importantly, I can't find any other reading that is better supported than this.

I am pretty sure this is how it is supposed to be resolved, but I am open to discuss alternatives.

[Michael Chandra]

If you can figure out where they are, it's not really a test involving visibility anymore. So I'm going to go with 'if you can figure out their spot, they get edge because you don't have a proper shot'.

[Shinobi Killfist]

A edge doesn’t seem to really encapsulate the difficulty at firing at a evading target you can’t see. Even if you hear he is over there or something.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

A edge doesn’t seem to really encapsulate the difficulty at firing at a evading target you can’t see. Even if you hear he is over there or something.

it depends.  In metagame-speak, do you know which square he's in on the battlemat? If so, only a slight penalty sounds about right.  Maybe no penalty at all if you're using a grenade launcher or flamethrower.   OTOH, are you simply aware of the general area (e.g. somewhere in the corner of this room)?  Maybe, if the general idea is specific enough, the GM may allow a "spray and pray" attack with an automatic weapon on that area, where only 1 attack out of X is actually represented by an attack actually aimed at the invisible person by sheer luck.  OTOOH: maybe your character's notion of the "general area" is too large for anything other than attacking with a hand grenade or rocket.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I don’t know things like smoke and fog where you can actually see a shape are blinded 1 or 2 levels. Or -3 or -6 dice. Too me it seems I know the square is at least blinded 1 level of difficulty. If you just know their general area I’d probably still have a dice pool penalty but maybe have some edge roll to see if you lucked out and hit the right square.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Toh-MAY-toe, Toh-MAH-toe.

Either a slight dice pool penalty or a "He gets Edge instead of you" approach works for "I know where you are, but technically can't see you" cases.  My point is: it's not legislated specifically because there's so many "well what if's" that it's all just left to GM discretion.

[Hobbes]

If you know the general area of your target you've passed some kind of perception test, maybe just not visual.  Smell, Hearing, whatever.  Or the sound/moving object/gunfire/knife in the back was obvious enough not to require a perception check.

There is a difference between "Totally unaware someone is in the room with you"  and "You were just shot at by someone/something near the door."

Arguably once you're in initiative passes everyone knows they're in a fight and so would shoot/throw grenades/spells/whatever at hidden opponents if they have some idea where they are.

The hidden combatant should gain Edge.  Other modifiers may apply depending on the exact situation, such as Cover, Concealment, Blindness, ect. 

[Xenon]

If you can figure out where they are...

But if you failed to 'notice' (it actually say 'notice', and not 'see') them with a perception test then you are in the blind about their location, yes...?

Rather than taking a blind fire modifier minus 6 dice and just fire when you cannot see (which was stupid when you had people with 20+ dice pools) in this edition it seem as if the test will automatically fail instead (which make much more sense). I don't see how this should not apply to subjects you cannot see (because they are successfully sneaking in the shadows or are invisible or because you are currently being blinded by a flashpak or whatever the reason might be).

Either a slight dice pool penalty or a "He gets Edge instead of you" approach works for "I know where you are, but technically can't see you" cases.  My point is: it's not legislated specifically because there's so many "well what if's" that it's all just left to GM discretion.

If you for example activate the sprinkler system to let you see the outline of the character as the drops hit his invisible body then I would give the you a 'Blinded II' modifier to hit him, but if the character is invisible and you failed your perception test to 'notice' him (but also if the character is sneaking and you failed to 'notice' him) then you in the 'Blinded III' category and just shooting in a random direction will not really have any chance to hit him at all.

If you know the general area of your target you've passed some kind of perception test, maybe just not visual.  Smell, Hearing, whatever.  Or the sound/moving object/gunfire/knife in the back was obvious enough not to require a perception check.

Agreed.

Not having a chance to hit the target is only if you failed the perception test to 'notice' the target.