[JustADude]

"Lightning Bolt deals physical damage (as per spell description) which is electricity damage (as per spell description). Electricity damage is treated as stun damage, therefore Lighting Bolt deals physical damage that is treated as stun damage." But how would you treat physical damage that is treated as stun damage?

Seems pretty simple to me. As I mentioned before, you just follow all the rules and procedures for stun damage but at the end of the day, when you've got the final DV it comes off the Physical track. Only way that could possibly make sense, in my mind.

[Crash_00]

Again, straight from Street Magic "These elemental spells inflict special types of damage that may also have secondary effects (starting fires, melting equipment, etc). Some of these elemental damage types (Acid, Cold, Electricity, and Fire) are described on pp. 154– 155, SR4."

It is inherently (e) damage first and foremost. (e) is always stun. The spell code has to say Physical Spell/Physical damage because it is an elemental spell. Every elemental spell has to list it that way no matter what type of damage it actually does because of the rules for building elemental spells.

If you build Screech, you will get the exact same spell as Lightning Bolt, but it's sonic and does sonic damage because the damage is of the sonic type, not Physical with some Sonic elements.

Again I ask, how is taking the damage off the physical track treating the damage as stun? Stun damage comes off of the stun track.

[Leticron]

Could you check what the english version defines as "spell description"?
German version includes the Stat Block, as I stated 2 posts above.

Apart from that I think I answered all your questions. Coming from the english wording there seems to be no definite answer - at least if the stat block is not included in the spell description.
German wording is pretty clear but the colliding rules don't make much sense either .

You're wrong about the "The spell code has to say Physical Spell/Physical damage because it is an elemental spell" though. The rules do not state that elemental spells always have to do physical damage. The same goes for all combat spells.

On the physical damage that is treated like stun damage issue, I don't think this is solvable without creating additional problems.
Given that we're not talking about a tabletop game that features tournaments and such, but a pen & paper game played in groups of 4-6 people (rough guess) I can only advise everyone that stumbles across this issue to talk to their group about it, pick one option and stick with it.
There are many GMs that banned Stick'n'Shock for example or the Slow spell from WAR, so house rules are nothing special.
Playing on conventions could be different, but in that case each GM should just decide for himself.

[Sichr]

If you keep reading that same section you quoted from though, the very next part is that they are not affected by stun damage. Electrical damage is treated as stun damage. It then goes on to show exactly how they are affected by electrical damage (which does not include damage, but shorting out).

Now this is really LOL
Spell says it has P damage

It also causes elemental effect, which, in case of drones/ vehicles/other machinery is resistance test described in Electricity damage. If Electricity attacks DO CALL for this resistance test, it means that Elemental effect - Electricity AFFECT drones etc.

So result is: Physical damage with Elemental effect, that could short out device.

[Sichr]

Just a quick question: What Attribute would you use to Resist Lightning bolt? Would it be Willpower, or Body + Half Armor?

[Crash_00]

Just a quick question: What Attribute would you use to Resist Lightning bolt? Would it be Willpower, or Body + Half Armor?

Physical typed spells are always resisted with body. Elemental spells always halve impact armor. So Lightning Bolt is resisted by Body + Half Armor + any modifiers for electrical damage (meaning no armor if it's metal or +Nonconductive rating).

Now this is really LOL
Spell says it has P damage

It also causes elemental effect, which, in case of drones/ vehicles/other machinery is resistance test described in Electricity damage. If Electricity attacks DO CALL for this resistance test, it means that Elemental effect - Electricity AFFECT drones etc.

So result is: Physical damage with Elemental effect, that could short out device.

All of the following are part of the Elemental effect for Electrical Damage:
1.-Electrical Damage is treated as stun damage
2.-Electrical Damage is resisted with half impact armor
3.-Metal armor does not offer protection
4.-Nonconductive armor adds full value to the resistance
5.-Successful attack can incapacitate target
6.-Non-incapacitated targets take a -2 for 2+net hits Combat Turns
7.-Electronic vehicles, equipment and drones can be affected
8.-They never take stun damage but must make a resistance vs. shutdown

The very first part of the effect is a shift to stun damage. Yes, it can affect vehicles by causing them to cease functioning for a while (exact rules are detailed in the book), but it does not deal damage since they don't take stun from it and damage is shifted to stun by the first part of the effect (even if you argue it does physical, the first part clearly causes the damage to be treated in all ways as stun which would pop number 8 into being since it's going to check and see a T value for stun since the damage is treated as stun).

Just tacking on parts 2-8 is not applying the elemental effect. It's applying only the beneficial parts of the elemental effect which is not what it said to happen.

Could you check what the english version defines as "spell description"?
German version includes the Stat Block, as I stated 2 posts above.

"Each spell has the following characteristics: Category, Type, Range, Threshold, Duration, Drain Value, and Effect."
All these characteristics make up the spell code except Effect, which is the spell's description. It's just like any other item or quality description.

You're wrong about the "The spell code has to say Physical Spell/Physical damage because it is an elemental spell" though. The rules do not state that elemental spells always have to do physical damage. The same goes for all combat spells.

Uhm...No, I'm not. I included a quote already on this part. I'll repost it for convenience, "Combat spells - Elemental eff ect (must be Physical spell with Physical damage) +2". This is from the table for determining designing spells and determining drain. During design, every single elemental spell has to follow these rules. The rules never state that the damage dealt by the element chosen (the special damage type chosen for the spell) has to be physical, only that the damage code during design must be physical (for the purposes of determining drain). This allows all elemental spells to use the same template when being designed. Whatever the damage type ends up being is going to vary from element to element, because the spell is modified as appropriate by the elemental effect. This is all laid out extremely clearly in Street Magic. If you want to disagree, please provide a source that disputes it.

Just to be extremely clear though, Lightning Bolt was specifically in mind when the Electrical Damage rules were written. I say this because if you bother to check the line right before the notice that all Electrical Damage is treated as stun, it states "Spells and critter powers such as Lightning Bolt and Energy Aura cause similar effects" If by similar they meant everything but the damage switch over, it would be in the text. At the very least, there would be a mention that some types of weapons/attacks can override the treated as stun clause. I can find none of these in the text.

[Sichr]

Since spell is described as doing Physical damage, I dont need to care about damage type any more. And for elemental effect Ill read that part of Electricity damage that fits to what I need...means everything but that part that says that Electricity damage is always and only stun..wait!
Trying to apply this wordplay is just riddiculous, since I will rather follow real life examples, than bad wording in text. And real life example told me, that if you got hit by Lightning or High voltage, you will be extremely lucky if you survive with just burns on half of your body. When I will see tree cut down by lightning, I wont consider it stunned, but physicaly destroyed. And when lightning hits the Jumbo Jet, I will suppose that only because it was robust enought (and created farraday cage for passengers also) it has overcame the damage, when electric systems malfunction may still apply.

It is really good that we dont have any Tesla Gun in Shadowrun, since this debate would be uch more heated...

Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEpvppljNFM&feature=related
but maybe its just another fake

Reminds me good joke Ive heard once (IDN if the translation to english is that funny either...)
Q: What it is: The Jumbo Jet, laying down on the sea floor, with the lawyer buckled up in every seat?
A: Good starting point.

[Lethe]

Again I ask, how is taking the damage off the physical track treating the damage as stun? Stun damage comes off of the stun track.

I agree. You have to treat it as stun damage the whole way. Not stop at 99% and then decide its physical again, lol.

Trying to apply this wordplay is just riddiculous, since I will rather follow real life examples, than bad wording in text. And real life example told me, that if you got hit by Lightning or High voltage, you will be extremely lucky if you survive with just burns on half of your body.

If you like real world examples that much, i have here two for you.
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/lightningsafety.html: Of 373 people hit by lightning only 73 died.
http://www.wsaz.com/blogs/askjosh/92183024.html: Meteorologist says only 10% of people struck are killed by lightning.
So the fatality is around 10-20%, stun damage seems very real for lightning.

[Crash_00]

And for elemental effect Ill read that part of Electricity damage that fits to what I need...means everything but that part that says that Electricity damage is always and only stun..wait!

Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but it isn't the way the game is written to work. You can take everything else and be happy with it, but by RAW Lightning Bolt takes everything, not just what you think fits. That everything includes it being stun damage.

Trying to apply this wordplay is just riddiculous, since I will rather follow real life examples, than bad wording in text. And real life example told me, that if you got hit by Lightning or High voltage, you will be extremely lucky if you survive with just burns on half of your body. When I will see tree cut down by lightning, I wont consider it stunned, but physicaly destroyed. And when lightning hits the Jumbo Jet, I will suppose that only because it was robust enought (and created farraday cage for passengers also) it has overcame the damage, when electric systems malfunction may still apply.

No wordplay is needed at all for lightning. Lightning has no stats to state it's physical. By the RAW, it would be straight electrical damage which is dealt as stun damage. The only reason people try to claim lightning bolt is physical is because it uses the same spell code that every elemental spell does. If you let Lightning Bolt become physical, then Lightning Bolt is not actually lightning but some new and improved lightning which kind of kills the "element of nature" description for elemental spells.

[Morg]

So how do you resolve the spell when one elemental component is Stun and the other is physical? Some elements have a wonderful mental synergy like mixing Smoke and Fire but figuring out the mechanics are frustrating aside from just saying "No" how would you Interpret it?

[Crash_00]

RAW simply doesn't cover it. You can argue theoretically over which element is added first in the design process and what not, but anyone with a decent sense of game balance would be able to say that shouldn't matter in the least. Bottom line is we don't have indication of one way or the other.

Personally, I'd rule with the physical elemental effect overriding the stun elemental effect, but that's by no means an official interpretation of it. The other one would be that it does both, but that's is pretty broken mechanically. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be smoke and fire, it would be smokefire/firesmoke. The multi-element spells lob one thing that is both elements. So it would be a smoke that literally ignites things. Technically a gas mask would protect against it fully, but the gasmask might catch fire.

I think my favorite multi-element spell so far was Thunder Clap (Lighning/Sound) for one incapacitating, nauseating, deafening bolt of pure disablement.

[Sichr]

Lightning has no stats to state it's physical.

CODE  MEANING
Type:
P   Physical spell
M  Mana spell
Range:
LOS  Line of sight
T   Touch
V   Voluntary targets only
A   Area spell
Damage:
P   Physical damage
S   Stun Damage

Duration:
I    Instant
S   Sustained
P   Permanent
Dv (Drain value):
F   Force

Lightning Bolt (Indirect, Elemental)
Type: P  •  Range: LOS  • Damage: P  •  Duration: I  •  DV:   (F   ÷   2)   +   3
Ball Lightning (Indirect, Elemental, Area)
Type: P • Range: LOS (A) • Damage: P • Duration: I • DV:   (F   ÷   2)   +   5
These spells create and direct vicious strikes of electricity that cause
Electricity damage (p. 163). Lightning Bolt is a single target spell. Ball
Lightning is an area spell.

Meteorologist says only 10% of people struck are killed by lightning.
So the fatality is around 10-20%, stun damage seems very real for lightning.

Well. You got me with this. Good work

[Chrona]

I'm still having it work on drones.

[Leticron]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for lighting bolt to do physical damage.
I'm just not convinced of this clearness you speak of.

I found the part about elemental attacks in the drain table. About the only place I didn't look . Although I'd say it is stated that way to make sure a clever spellcrafter doesn't try to get elemental spells with stun damage & mana spells drain modifiers, I agree now, elemental spells have to be both physical spells and do physical damage.
However I see no evidence that this is only there to allow for easier template use. It's quite possible that the intention rather was to make sure every elemental spell also does physical damage (which leads to said rules contradiction).
The same goes for your definition of "spell description". If the damage-type section was only referring to the part not written in the spell code why not just write "the damage can be found under spell effects". Moreover I have yet to find any evidence that the spell code is not part of its description. In german a description is defined as "a summary of information/details about something", which is exactly what spell code + effect do. Leaving one of them out just makes the spells description less complete.
I doubt that this is the intention and doubt the english definition of description is any different from the german one.
This of course leads to the "spell description vs. electricity damage" contradiction debate, which is just not so easily solved.
Even the part about the lightning bolt spell in the electricity damage just states "similar".
Similar ≠ the same.
In short, while from a logical point of view I'd agree with your argumentation, as it makes sense to keep exceptions to the rule down to a minimum, I still have to say your interpretation of the rules is just not as clear as you'd like it to be - especially as you argue "by the rules" in terms of wording and such.
As I've already written the closest you could come to "overruling" the physical damage from the spell code is by saying that even physical electricity damage is treated as stun damage. Then again a lightning bolt is only "similar" not the same... .

P.S. I don't want to sound nitpicking here, in fact I'm all for clearness, but rules wise it just ain't clear.

Also, I don't think real life examples do this discussion any good.. While I personally think that every pen & paper group should at the very least be inspired by how things work "in real life", the rather abstract rules set of shadowrun tends to crack when confronted with certain real life examples.
Take "Electricity damage" for example.
In real life leaves electricity burns due to the heat set free when it hits a human body which would fall into the "physical damage" category.
But Shadowrun doesn't take notice of that.
So when you go on, the whole set of rules gets questioned and crumbles.
Therefore it's much better to just stick to the rules, they work quite well in most situations and when they don't just pick the option your group likes best, or change whatever you don't like. After the rules are just a means to experience stories in playing your character in the shadowrun universe.

[Crash_00]

Sichr, if you read my quote that your referenced, I said lightning (not lightning bolt) had no stats. It was is response to the claim that lightning (again, not lightning bolt) does physical damage in real life and in shadowrun so lightning bolt should to.

It's quite possible that the intention rather was to make sure every elemental spell also does physical damage (which leads to said rules contradiction).

However, in spell design we also have this part here: "Most Combat spells with elemental effects have the same game characteristics;
the only difference is the elemental effect (Acid Stream, Flamethrower, and Lightning Bolt, for example, are all the same). To create a spell with a different elemental effect such as Ice or Sand (see pp. 164–165) is very easy—simply use the same spell statistics, apply the rules for the new elemental effect, and rename it."
So the breakdown goes like this effectively:
A.) Copy/Paste the standard elemental spell code for Single Target or AoE.
B.) Apply elemental rules.
C.) Rename it.

The elemental rules kick in after the spell code, so the stun conversion happens after spell design as well. Even if you think the spell code is part of the description (in which case they should have just said damage would be in the spell characteristics which are defined to include the spell code), it's still fairly clear.

I completely agree about the RL examples. Shadowrun has become an action movie already for the most part. RL doesn't compare well to it in any part, trying to force this one part to is like trying to strap horns to a cow and call it a bull.