Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:12:31 -0500
I was reading the anchoring rules in MitS and thought of a few practical
problems that I'd like to post for inspection.

1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
are:
a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
toward the enemy, and so on. I don't think the spell creation rules
allow for a Detect Bullet spell that only detects bullets speeding
towards the possessor of the anchoring focus. That, I think, requires
enough discrimination to fall under the "Spells can't think" caveat
listed in MitS. So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up
every time someone with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range
of the detection spell?

2. The area effect spell trap w/Detect (person, thing, etc)
combination. Problems are:
a. So you've got a Powerball or whatever in an expendable
anchoring focus along with a Detect (whatever) spell attached. The
range of the Detect (whatever) spell is Force x Magic, in meters. The
radius of the Powerball is Magic, in meters. So...the only way to have
the spell detonate with the target within the radius of the actual
combat spell is to have the detection spell be Force 1. This, of
course, makes it unlikely that the detection spell will actually detect
anything to set off the trap. Sure you could throw in spell pool dice
to boost the number of dice the detection spell throws but the poor sod
who wanders into range is still resisting the detection spell with a TN#
2; not to mention taking valuable dice away from the combat spell.

3. I have a problem with the vagueness of the statement on p. 71 MitS
where it says the Detect Bullet spell will, "...drop(ing) the Armor
spell when the danger is past." What gives here? How does the Detect
Bullet spell know "when the danger is past?" Is the danger past when a
whole initiative pass goes by without a bullet in range? or maybe a
combat turn? I'm curious to find out what others think of as qualifying
to a non-thinking Detect Bullet spell as "the danger is past."

I can, and will, make some sort of set of house rules to take care
of these issues but I'd like to know what some of the list magic gurus
have to say on the subject first.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 2
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:36:03 +0200
According to Kenneth Vinson, at 0:12 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> 1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
> are:
> a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
> v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
> toward the enemy, and so on.

That's the way I would make the combo work, yes. You can't even carry a
firearm for self-defense when you've got this anchored on you...

> So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up every time someone
> with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range of the detection
> spell?

"You can't," would be my answer.

> 3. I have a problem with the vagueness of the statement on p. 71 MitS
> where it says the Detect Bullet spell will, "...drop(ing) the Armor
> spell when the danger is past." What gives here? How does the Detect
> Bullet spell know "when the danger is past?"

When the bullet is out of its detection area, of course. This is a boolean
situation: either there are bullets in the area, or there are not. If
there are, the Barrier spell goes up; otherwise, it stays down.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:43:47 +0100
Gurth wrote:
>
> According to Kenneth Vinson, at 0:12 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
> was...
>
> > 1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
> > are:
> > a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
> > v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
> > toward the enemy, and so on.
>
> That's the way I would make the combo work, yes. You can't even carry a
> firearm for self-defense when you've got this anchored on you...
>
> > So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up every time someone
> > with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range of the detection
> > spell?
>
> "You can't," would be my answer.
>
> > 3. I have a problem with the vagueness of the statement on p. 71 MitS
> > where it says the Detect Bullet spell will, "...drop(ing) the Armor
> > spell when the danger is past." What gives here? How does the Detect
> > Bullet spell know "when the danger is past?"
>
> When the bullet is out of its detection area, of course. This is a boolean
> situation: either there are bullets in the area, or there are not. If
> there are, the Barrier spell goes up; otherwise, it stays down.
>

The next interesting question that begs to be asked is:

"What happens if you have a gun inside the barrier (ie You got the gun then
activaled the spells) and you fire it ?"

-Andrew

--
"The avalanche has already started.
It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
- Kosh (B5)
Message no. 4
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:34:34 -0400
From: "Andrew Norman" <andrew_norman@******.com>
> > From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> > When the bullet is out of its detection area, of course. This is a
boolean
> > situation: either there are bullets in the area, or there are not. If
> > there are, the Barrier spell goes up; otherwise, it stays down.
> >
>
> The next interesting question that begs to be asked is:
>
> "What happens if you have a gun inside the barrier (ie You got the gun
then
> activaled the spells) and you fire it ?"
>

Well, like Gurth said, as soon as the spells are activated, and there are
bullets within the detection range (such as the gun that the person has),
the barrier goes up. If the person *still* wants to fire the gun, well..
chalk another one up for human stupidity. ;)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 5
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:06:41 -0400
Gurth wrote:
>
> According to Kenneth Vinson, at 0:12 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
> was...
>
> > 1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
> > are:
> > a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
> > v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
> > toward the enemy, and so on.
>
> That's the way I would make the combo work, yes. You can't even carry a
> firearm for self-defense when you've got this anchored on you...
>
> > So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up every time someone
> > with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range of the detection
> > spell?
>
> "You can't," would be my answer.
>
> > 3. I have a problem with the vagueness of the statement on p. 71 MitS
> > where it says the Detect Bullet spell will, "...drop(ing) the Armor
> > spell when the danger is past." What gives here? How does the Detect
> > Bullet spell know "when the danger is past?"
>
> When the bullet is out of its detection area, of course. This is a boolean
> situation: either there are bullets in the area, or there are not. If
> there are, the Barrier spell goes up; otherwise, it stays down.

As the Detect Object (bullet in this case) spell stands, I'd agree
with this POV. However, wouldn't it be possible to detect a bullet
that has been fired? Perhaps the the spell could "look" at the
velocity of the bullet? After all mana "reacts" effectively
instantaneously and wouldn't need much time to determine the velocity.

Or the detect spell could detect a bullet without a casing or
propellant? But I would think that there would be small traces of
propellant left on any bullet and thus this wouldn't work.

Either way, if the spell could detect a bullet that has been fired, as
opposed to being carried, it would protect the subject of the spell
combo from incoming bullets. But he still wouldn't be able to use a
gun himself. Perfect combo to use to protect non-combat execs.

--
Iridios
--
"There's no such thing as an innocent user" (Dark Avenger, in a
Wired interview)

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
8:58:05 AM/81:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 6
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:20:26 -0400
From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> As the Detect Object (bullet in this case) spell stands, I'd agree
> with this POV. However, wouldn't it be possible to detect a bullet
> that has been fired? Perhaps the the spell could "look" at the
> velocity of the bullet? After all mana "reacts" effectively
> instantaneously and wouldn't need much time to determine the velocity.
>

Well, the problem is that the spell can not determine those type of things.
=) You could make anchor another spell to the focus which will determine the
velocity of any incoming object (in theory, I suppose. Like a magical radar
gun.), but the detect bullet spell doesn't, in its default form, have the
capability of determining velocity. So, it isn't the matter of the speed of
the spell's reaction.

> Or the detect spell could detect a bullet without a casing or
> propellant? But I would think that there would be small traces of
> propellant left on any bullet and thus this wouldn't work.

A bullet without casing or propellant is just a small piece of metal, no?
You want to have a Detect Small Piece of Metal spell? ;)

> Either way, if the spell could detect a bullet that has been fired, as
> opposed to being carried, it would protect the subject of the spell
> combo from incoming bullets. But he still wouldn't be able to use a
> gun himself. Perfect combo to use to protect non-combat execs.
>

Well, the problem with having the spell detect the difference between a
bullet at rest and a bullet in motion is the fact that the spell can't
think. You can attach another spell to determine certain things, and then
have it relay that information to the detect spell, which then activates the
barrier, I suppose, but it seems like more trouble than its worth. ;)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 7
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:24:12 +0100
kawaii wrote:
>
> From: "Andrew Norman" <andrew_norman@******.com>
> > > From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> > > When the bullet is out of its detection area, of course. This is a
> boolean
> > > situation: either there are bullets in the area, or there are not. If
> > > there are, the Barrier spell goes up; otherwise, it stays down.
> > >
> >
> > The next interesting question that begs to be asked is:
> >
> > "What happens if you have a gun inside the barrier (ie You got the gun
> then
> > activaled the spells) and you fire it ?"
> >
>
> Well, like Gurth said, as soon as the spells are activated, and there are
> bullets within the detection range (such as the gun that the person has),
> the barrier goes up. If the person *still* wants to fire the gun, well..
> chalk another one up for human stupidity. ;)

How do you people describe bullets hitting the barrier. Do they bounce off
or just disappear. If they bounce then the person inside firing the guy
could look like a piece a swiss cheese ;)

Also is the barrier a sphere of non-bulletness or just a thin wall on the
edge of the sphere.

If the spell is a solid area and the barrier causes bullets to bounce then
I would expect the gun to explode if fired.

"I'm getting an evil-gm (tm) idea"
-Andrew

--
"Don't. You're too young to experience that much pain."
- Ivanova (B5)
Message no. 8
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:38:14 -0400
kawaii wrote:
>
> From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> > As the Detect Object (bullet in this case) spell stands, I'd agree
> > with this POV. However, wouldn't it be possible to detect a bullet
> > that has been fired? Perhaps the the spell could "look" at the
> > velocity of the bullet? After all mana "reacts" effectively
> > instantaneously and wouldn't need much time to determine the velocity.
> >
>
> Well, the problem is that the spell can not determine those type of things.
> =) You could make anchor another spell to the focus which will determine the
> velocity of any incoming object (in theory, I suppose. Like a magical radar
> gun.), but the detect bullet spell doesn't, in its default form, have the
> capability of determining velocity. So, it isn't the matter of the speed of
> the spell's reaction.

As I said, the Detect Object spell cannot determine velocity. But
what is to stop someone from creating a new spell that can detect a
bullet moving at high velocity? See further in my post for my
reasoning.

>
> > Or the detect spell could detect a bullet without a casing or
> > propellant? But I would think that there would be small traces of
> > propellant left on any bullet and thus this wouldn't work.
>
> A bullet without casing or propellant is just a small piece of metal, no?
> You want to have a Detect Small Piece of Metal spell? ;)

A bullet is not just any small piece of metal. If that were the case
I could load my weapons with nails, nuts, and washers without any
drawbacks. Wouldn't that be nice? No, a bullet is a small piece of
metal shaped into a certain configuration. A spell designed to detect
that configuration would be able to see bullets, but not other
non-bullet shaped small pieces of metal. Of course this spell would
also detect a stationary bullet sitting on a nearby shelf.

By your argument Detect Troll should not work because a troll is a
living being that stands erect and has two arms, two legs, and a
head. Same as any other Metahuman.

>
> > Either way, if the spell could detect a bullet that has been fired, as
> > opposed to being carried, it would protect the subject of the spell
> > combo from incoming bullets. But he still wouldn't be able to use a
> > gun himself. Perfect combo to use to protect non-combat execs.
> >
>
> Well, the problem with having the spell detect the difference between a
> bullet at rest and a bullet in motion is the fact that the spell can't
> think.

No spells cannot think, the mages who design the spell do the
thinking. And since magic in the SR universe isn't set in stone, it
is possible for a mage to design some very specific spells.

As for detecting a bullet that's been fired as opposed to one that's
been carried. All things have "signatures", the signatures of living
creatures are obviously the aura. But what of non-living objects?

It is obviously possible for a spell to detect a bullet (and other
objects) irregardless of it not having an aura. So bullets have
signatures that the spell can detect. (Meta)Humans can determine the
difference between a fired bullet and a carried bullet (even if we
cannot see the fired bullet). So spells should be able to be designed
to determine that difference, without the help of an outside spell.

--
Iridios
--
Question _your own_ authority.

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
9:23:06 AM/86:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 9
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:31:45 EDT
In a message dated Thu, 20 Apr 2000 5:34:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Gurth"
<gurth@******.nl> writes:

> According to Kenneth Vinson, at 0:12 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
> was...
>
> > 1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
> > are:
> > a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
> > v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
> > toward the enemy, and so on.
>
> That's the way I would make the combo work, yes. You can't even carry a
> firearm for self-defense when you've got this anchored on you...
<snip>

I have a question that popped up. does the bullet have to be in flight for the bullet
barrier to go up? If the sammie (carrying a holstered and armed pistol) walked by the
mage, would the barier go up?

Cash
Message no. 10
From: Phil pames@*****.net
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:26:40 -0500
At 09:06 AM 4/20/2000 -0400, Iridios wrote:
>Either way, if the spell could detect a bullet that has been fired, as
>opposed to being carried, it would protect the subject of the spell
>combo from incoming bullets. But he still wouldn't be able to use a
>gun himself. Perfect combo to use to protect non-combat execs.


Or the infamous Bow toting Physad. Arrows aren't bullets, after all.


Phil
Message no. 11
From: Zebulin L. Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:05:59 -0700
Kenneth Vinson <kennethv@****.wisc.edu> wrote:

>
> listed in MitS. So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up
> every time someone with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range
> of the detection spell?
>

I hadn't thought of it before, but I would say that the barrier spell
becomes active as soon as it detects a bullet. Period. Whether you are
carrying it, or the sammy that walks by is, the barrier will still go up.


>
> combat turn? I'm curious to find out what others think of as qualifying
> to a non-thinking Detect Bullet spell as "the danger is past."

I would tend to think that "the danger is past" means literally what it
says. If there is no bullet within the detection radius, there is no danger.
I mean, that makes sense, right?

>
> I can, and will, make some sort of set of house rules to take care
> of these issues but I'd like to know what some of the list magic gurus
> have to say on the subject first.
>

No real need for house rules, just need a concrete idea of what they mean.
I, personally think it's pretty clear, but YMMV. :)

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++
Message no. 12
From: Zebulin L. Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:07:44 -0700
Andrew Norman <andrew_norman@******.com> wrote:

>
> How do you people describe bullets hitting the barrier. Do they bounce off
> or just disappear. If they bounce then the person inside firing the guy
> could look like a piece a swiss cheese ;)
>

The bullets bounce in my game.

> Also is the barrier a sphere of non-bulletness or just a thin wall on the
> edge of the sphere.
>

I remember reading somewhere that you could do both with a barrier spell. Is
that true or am I misremembering something?

> If the spell is a solid area and the barrier causes bullets to bounce then
> I would expect the gun to explode if fired.
>


Why would the gun explode???


-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++
Message no. 13
From: Zebulin L. Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:11:17 -0700
Iridios <iridios@*****.com> wrote:

> >
> > A bullet without casing or propellant is just a small piece of metal,
no?
> > You want to have a Detect Small Piece of Metal spell? ;)
>
> A bullet is not just any small piece of metal.

Ah, but it IS a small piece of metal. (Unless you are using an assault
cannon. Question, would the detect bullet spell work against assault cannon
rounds? Nevermind the power behind them, but would it work?)


>
> By your argument Detect Troll should not work because a troll is a
> living being that stands erect and has two arms, two legs, and a
> head. Same as any other Metahuman.
>

Perhaps, but the spell was specifically designed to detect trolls.

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++
Message no. 14
From: Zebulin L. Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:12:24 -0700
<GuayII@***.com> wrote:

>
> I have a question that popped up. does the bullet have to be in flight for
the bullet barrier to go up? If the sammie (carrying a holstered and armed
pistol) walked by the mage, would the barier go up?
>
> Cash
>

Well, the detect bullet spell does exactly that. In my opinion, it will
detect ANY bullet within it's range.

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++
Message no. 15
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:19:06 +0200
According to GuayII@***.com, at 10:31 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> I have a question that popped up. does the bullet have to be in flight
> for the bullet barrier to go up? If the sammie (carrying a holstered
> and armed pistol) walked by the mage, would the barier go up?

IMHO, yes, it would. (That is what I was trying to say in reply to the
original question... :) I have always argued that to a spell, any <insert
item here> is an <insert item here> regardless of the difference humans
might make between them. To a Detect Bullet spell, _any_ bullet,
regardless of the speed at which it's moving, is a bullet; likewise, to
the Bullet Barrier, an APDS bullet does not differ from a regular bullet,
and so it doesn't halve its rating against APDS ammo. (Not sure if this is
an official rule or not, but it makes sense to me.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:19:06 +0200
According to kawaii, at 9:20 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street was...

> > Or the detect spell could detect a bullet without a casing or
> > propellant? But I would think that there would be small traces of
> > propellant left on any bullet and thus this wouldn't work.
>
> A bullet without casing or propellant is just a small piece of metal, no?
> You want to have a Detect Small Piece of Metal spell? ;)

This is one of those spells that virtually any GM will try to twist
against the players if they exhibit a tendency to make it work for them
too much :)

SR's magic system works fine, IMHO, but it breaks down (from the players'
POV, anyway) when you try to make it do things that are too specific, or
try to define how the spell does something in too specific a sense.

> Well, the problem with having the spell detect the difference between a
> bullet at rest and a bullet in motion is the fact that the spell can't
> think. You can attach another spell to determine certain things, and then
> have it relay that information to the detect spell, which then activates the
> barrier, I suppose, but it seems like more trouble than its worth. ;)

You could design a Detect Fast-Moving Bullet spell, but then you'll get
evil GMs saying, "Fast-moving relative to what...?" and still let it go
off on bullets that are still in a gun, or not detect bullets that have
been fired at the person supposedly protected by this spell.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 17
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:19:06 +0200
According to Andrew Norman, at 10:43 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> The next interesting question that begs to be asked is:
>
> "What happens if you have a gun inside the barrier (ie You got the gun then
> activaled the spells) and you fire it ?"

If you've got a loaded firearm inside the Detect Bullet/Bullet Barrier
combo, IMHO the Bullet Barrier is always up. So, when you fire the gun, it
will have to defeat the Barrier that you put there for your own
protection...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 18
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:22:04 -0400
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> regardless of the speed at which it's moving, is a bullet; likewise, to
> the Bullet Barrier, an APDS bullet does not differ from a regular bullet,
> and so it doesn't halve its rating against APDS ammo. (Not sure if this is
> an official rule or not, but it makes sense to me.)
>

Well, APDS halves rating because of its special penetrating ability, which I
would imagine, doesn't apply to magical barriers, because, and I hate to say
this, it is magical. ;)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 19
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:25:24 -0400
"Zebulin L. Magby" wrote:
>
> Iridios <iridios@*****.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > A bullet without casing or propellant is just a small piece of metal,
> no?
> > > You want to have a Detect Small Piece of Metal spell? ;)
> >
> > A bullet is not just any small piece of metal.
>
> Ah, but it IS a small piece of metal.

I also said, in a section you snipped out, "No, a bullet is a small
piece of
metal shaped into a certain configuration." Which makes it different
from any other small piece of metal.

> >
> > By your argument Detect Troll should not work because a troll is a
> > living being that stands erect and has two arms, two legs, and a
> > head. Same as any other Metahuman.
> >
>
> Perhaps, but the spell was specifically designed to detect trolls.

And a "Detect Fired Bullet" spell can detect bullets that have been
fired.

--
Iridios
--
If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
1:18:09 PM/133:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 20
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:27:40 -0400
GuayII@***.com wrote:

> I have a question that popped up. does the bullet have to be in flight for the bullet
barrier to go up? If the sammie (carrying a holstered and armed pistol) walked by the
mage, would the barier go up?

As the Detect Object (which Detect Bullet would fall under) spell is
written, then yes the barrier would go up if any bullet, in flight,
carried, or stationary comes within range.

--
Iridios
--
"There's no such thing as an innocent user" (Dark Avenger, in a
Wired interview)

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
1:23:09 PM/134:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 21
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:16:39 -0500
Gurth wrote:

> You could design a Detect Fast-Moving Bullet spell, but then you'll get
> evil GMs saying, "Fast-moving relative to what...?" and still let it go
> off on bullets that are still in a gun, or not detect bullets that have
> been fired at the person supposedly protected by this spell.

It occurs to me that most bullets are supersonic in speed. I would think that
a spell could be designed to "Detect Supersonic velocity object". That would
take
care of the "fast moving relative to what?" considerations by relating the
velocity to a consistent, depending on pressure, humidity, etc. but still very
consistent velocity that almost all bullets exceed. Very little else besides
bullets will be moving past the character at supersonic speeds. So, have I solved
my own problem or can someone poke a hole in this?

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 22
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:25:36 -0400
Kenneth Vinson wrote:
>
> Gurth wrote:
>
> > You could design a Detect Fast-Moving Bullet spell, but then you'll get
> > evil GMs saying, "Fast-moving relative to what...?" and still let it
go
> > off on bullets that are still in a gun, or not detect bullets that have
> > been fired at the person supposedly protected by this spell.
>
> It occurs to me that most bullets are supersonic in speed. I would think that
> a spell could be designed to "Detect Supersonic velocity object". That
would take
> care of the "fast moving relative to what?" considerations by relating the
> velocity to a consistent, depending on pressure, humidity, etc. but still very
> consistent velocity that almost all bullets exceed. Very little else besides
> bullets will be moving past the character at supersonic speeds. So, have I solved
> my own problem or can someone poke a hole in this?

I can poke a hole in this, but it takes a dragon to do so.:) What
about supersonic aircraft, in flight passing a dragon with this spell
:)

O.K. So I'm a smarta$$. Sue me. :)

BTW, this is essentially what I've been saying, a "Detect Supersonic
Bullet" coupled with a Bullet barrier should do the trick. Except you
still can't fire from inside.

--
Iridios
--
Evolution is a harsh mistress.

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
2:18:10 PM/145:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 23
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:26:00 -0500
Andrew Norman wrote:

> Also is the barrier a sphere of non-bulletness or just a thin wall on the
> edge of the sphere.

As long as you include the "caster only" restriction in spell design I
would envison the barrier as surrounding the caster at a very close range,
perhaps a centimeter or two.

>
> If the spell is a solid area and the barrier causes bullets to bounce then
> I would expect the gun to explode if fired.

I believe the hemispheric version is a thin barrier and thus a bullet
ricocheting off the curved wall of the barrier won't necessarily bounce back
right to the firer. Of course, everyone inside the barrier would be vulnerable
to a ricochet.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson

P.S. No one has responded to the second point I raised about the bomb trap
combination. Anybody?
Message no. 24
From: Bai Shen baishen@**********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:33:28 -0400
> BTW, this is essentially what I've been saying, a "Detect Supersonic
> Bullet" coupled with a Bullet barrier should do the trick. Except you
> still can't fire from inside.

What about subsonic silenced rounds? :)

Bai Shen
Message no. 25
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:31:54 -0500
Iridios wrote:

> I can poke a hole in this, but it takes a dragon to do so.:) What
> about supersonic aircraft, in flight passing a dragon with this spell
> :)
>
> O.K. So I'm a smarta$$. Sue me. :)

You're right, in both cases. ;) I don't, however, picture myself as a GM having a
dragon use an anchored bullet barrier. Their tough hide does nicely against anything my
PC's are packing.

>
> BTW, this is essentially what I've been saying, a "Detect Supersonic
> Bullet" coupled with a Bullet barrier should do the trick. Except you
> still can't fire from inside.

I did take notice and your reply was the inspiration for the above mentioned spell.
I just felt move comfortable relating the criteria to a natural phenomena that was
independant of human measuring scales. It seemed more within the spirit of the spell
creation rules to do that rather than have the criteria based on arbitrary human
considerations. Then again, that's the scientist in me talking. Thanks for the help.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 26
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:35:15 -0500
Bai Shen wrote:

> > BTW, this is essentially what I've been saying, a "Detect Supersonic
> > Bullet" coupled with a Bullet barrier should do the trick. Except you
> > still can't fire from inside.
>
> What about subsonic silenced rounds? :)
>

That's why I said "most bullets" in my original post. I did remember
about the quieter subsonic ammunition but I figured that that was rare
enough in Shadowrun, i.e. there are no rules for it that I know of, that it
would hardly ever come up. Thanks for keeping me on my toes, though.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 27
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:36:33 -0400
Kenneth Vinson wrote:
>
> Iridios wrote:
>
> > BTW, this is essentially what I've been saying, a "Detect Supersonic
> > Bullet" coupled with a Bullet barrier should do the trick. Except you
> > still can't fire from inside.
>
> I did take notice and your reply was the inspiration for the above mentioned
spell.
> I just felt move comfortable relating the criteria to a natural phenomena that was
> independant of human measuring scales. It seemed more within the spirit of the spell
> creation rules to do that rather than have the criteria based on arbitrary human
> considerations. Then again, that's the scientist in me talking. Thanks for the
help.

Well, you were able to clearly state what I was thinking. But of
late, my thought processes have been messed up. Comes from having to
work non-standard schedules. I hate not having weekends. And you are
welcome. :)

--
Iridios
--
"The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the
liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the
Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an
anonymous poster on cypherpunks list)

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
2:33:10 PM/148:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 28
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:38:03 -0400
From: "Kenneth Vinson" <kennethv@****.wisc.edu>


> Gurth wrote:
>
> > You could design a Detect Fast-Moving Bullet spell, but then you'll get
> > evil GMs saying, "Fast-moving relative to what...?" and still let it
go
> > off on bullets that are still in a gun, or not detect bullets that have
> > been fired at the person supposedly protected by this spell.
>
> It occurs to me that most bullets are supersonic in speed. I would
think that
> a spell could be designed to "Detect Supersonic velocity object". That
would take
> care of the "fast moving relative to what?" considerations by relating the
> velocity to a consistent, depending on pressure, humidity, etc. but still
very
> consistent velocity that almost all bullets exceed. Very little else
besides
> bullets will be moving past the character at supersonic speeds. So, have
I solved
> my own problem or can someone poke a hole in this?

With the exception of a certain boom gun, I don't believe bullets are
supersonic. If they were supersonic, you would cause a sonic boom each time
your guns fired. =)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 29
From: Bai Shen baishen@**********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:58:59 -0400
> With the exception of a certain boom gun, I don't believe bullets are
> supersonic. If they were supersonic, you would cause a sonic boom each time
> your guns fired. =)

They do produce a sonic boom when they're fired. That's where most of
the noise comes from.

Bai Shen
Message no. 30
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:58:48 -0500
kawaii wrote:

> With the exception of a certain boom gun, I don't believe bullets are
> supersonic. If they were supersonic, you would cause a sonic boom each time
> your guns fired. =)

Ok, you had me scared for a second. I just did a quick google search for
"muzzle velocity"+firearm and came up with some listing for a few firearms. A
Glock 17, for example is listed as having a muzzle velocity of about 360 m/s or
1180 ft/s. The speed of sound in air at 20 degrees celsius at standard pressure
is 343 m/s or 1125 ft/s. So...even a handgun round exceeds the speed of sound.
This implies to me that the smaller caliber, more powder assault rifle rounds
certainly exceed the speed of sound. The reason there isn't a jet fighter like
sonic boom is that the bullet is a mere fraction of the mass and energy of a jet
fighter and thus has a correspondingly smaller "boom". As was mentioned in an
earlier post, there are subsonic rounds that are quieter for just this reason.
Once again, keeping me on my toes.:)

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 31
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:59:06 -0400
From: "Kenneth Vinson" <kennethv@****.wisc.edu>
> kawaii wrote:
>
> > With the exception of a certain boom gun, I don't believe bullets are
> > supersonic. If they were supersonic, you would cause a sonic boom each
time
> > your guns fired. =)
>
> Ok, you had me scared for a second. I just did a quick google search
for
> "muzzle velocity"+firearm and came up with some listing for a few
firearms. A
> Glock 17, for example is listed as having a muzzle velocity of about 360
m/s or
> 1180 ft/s. The speed of sound in air at 20 degrees celsius at standard
pressure
> is 343 m/s or 1125 ft/s. So...even a handgun round exceeds the speed of
sound.
> This implies to me that the smaller caliber, more powder assault rifle
rounds
> certainly exceed the speed of sound. The reason there isn't a jet fighter
like
> sonic boom is that the bullet is a mere fraction of the mass and energy of
a jet
> fighter and thus has a correspondingly smaller "boom". As was mentioned
in an
> earlier post, there are subsonic rounds that are quieter for just this
reason.
> Once again, keeping me on my toes.:)

*grin* Learn something new every day. I figure since the term "supersonic"
implies faster than the speed of sound, it would, natraully, cause a sonic
boom. =) Go figure. =P

Thnks for the 411. =)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 32
From: Bai Shen baishen@**********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:08:24 -0400
> *grin* Learn something new every day. I figure since the term "supersonic"
> implies faster than the speed of sound, it would, natraully, cause a sonic
> boom. =) Go figure. =P

Umm, it does cause a sonic boom. It's jus' a large one.

Bai Shen
Message no. 33
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:06:54 -0400
At 02:38 PM 4/20/00, kawaii wrote:
>With the exception of a certain boom gun, I don't believe bullets are
>supersonic. If they were supersonic, you would cause a sonic boom each time
>your guns fired. =)
>
>Ever lovable and always scrappy,
>kawaii

Almost all bullets (except certain subsonic ammo) are supersonic, with some
reaching hypersonic speeds. You do hear a sonic boom each time a gun is
fired. Its called the report. That's the "crack" sound you hear when a gun
is fired.


Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 34
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:47:08 -0500
Ken Vinso said:

:1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
:are:
: a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
:v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
:toward the enemy, and so on.

Since more successes on a snesing test using a detection spell reveals
more information about the item sensed, I think that speed / kinnetic energy
(and hance lethanlity) would be one piece of inforation the spell could
easily sense and convey. All it would take is more than one sensing
success, and since you are only worried about bullets you can see (those are
the ones that might hit you), the TN is just 4. Check the table on sr3 p.
192 and the general detection spell description for details on how this
would work.

:I don't think the spell creation rules
:allow for a Detect Bullet spell that only detects bullets speeding
:towards the possessor of the anchoring focus. That, I think, requires
:enough discrimination to fall under the "Spells can't think" caveat
:listed in MitS.

Its as simple as determing if the bullet has high or low speed and kinetec
energy- that does not require thinking. You can (throretically) do it with
a radar gun. In the same way that "detect life" tells you waht KIND of life
is in an area, with enough sensign successes, detect bullets should tell you
something about the bullets it senses...

:So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up
:every time someone with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range
:of the detection spell?

I'd set the trigger condtion to require that the spell sense bullets
that have more than a certain speed (say, 20 m / sec). That would still be
sense bullets you fired, but it would at least let you and your gaurds carry
guns without setting the spell off.

:2. The area effect spell trap w/Detect (person, thing, etc)
:combination. Problems are:
: a. So you've got a Powerball or whatever in an expendable
:anchoring focus along with a Detect (whatever) spell attached. The
:range of the Detect (whatever) spell is Force x Magic, in meters. The
:radius of the Powerball is Magic, in meters. So...the only way to have
:the spell detonate with the target within the radius of the actual
:combat spell is to have the detection spell be Force 1.

That radius of any spell (including detection) can be adjusted down by
withholding spellcasting dice. Besides, when targeted with a detection
spell, the combat spell would go off centered on the traget, not the anchor,
I think.

:3. I have a problem with the vagueness of the statement on p. 71 MitS
:where it says the Detect Bullet spell will, "...drop(ing) the Armor
:spell when the danger is past." What gives here? How does the Detect
:Bullet spell know "when the danger is past?" Is the danger past when a
:whole initiative pass goes by without a bullet in range? or maybe a
:combat turn? I'm curious to find out what others think of as qualifying
:to a non-thinking Detect Bullet spell as "the danger is past."

I think it just means as soon as the barrier has done what it can to
stop the detected bullet- which means that the detected bullet has lost a
signifigant amount of speed or left the radius of the detection spell, both
of which would be easy to detect. On the other hand, I think popping the
barrier up again would require re-activating the anchor, and why not just
leave the barrier up until its "manually" turned off?

Mongoose



_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 35
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:46:14 -0500
From: kawaii <trunks@********.org>


:the detect bullet spell doesn't, in its default form, have the
:capability of determining velocity. So, it isn't the matter of the speed of
:the spell's reaction.


It doesn't? Why would a detect object spell (which is all a detect bullet
spell is) not reveal more info about the object than its simple pressence or
absence? The table on p 192 that indicates quite the opposite, in fact-
better detection spell resutls reveal more detailed information.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 36
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:52:45 -0500
>>>You could design a Detect Fast-Moving Bullet spell, but then you'll get
evil GMs saying, "Fast-moving relative to what...?" and still let it go
off on bullets that are still in a gun, or not detect bullets that have
been fired at the person supposedly protected by this spell.>>>

Again, why bother? More sucesses with ANY detection spell reveals more
specific info about the object detected. 2 succeses should be enough to
indicate rough speed, ans in "lethally fast" or "sitting in that guys
pocket
slow". They added that nice table on p. 192- why not use it?

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 37
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:31:43 -0500
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> Since more successes on a snesing test using a detection spell reveals
> more information about the item sensed, I think that speed / kinnetic energy
> (and hance lethanlity) would be one piece of inforation the spell could
> easily sense and convey. All it would take is more than one sensing
> success, and since you are only worried about bullets you can see (those are
> the ones that might hit you), the TN is just 4. Check the table on sr3 p.
> 192 and the general detection spell description for details on how this
> would work.
>

Good point about the more successes=more info but I, personally wouldn't want to
have to count on the Detection spell getting multiple successes. What do you
think of the "Detect Supersonic Object" spell mentioned in an earlier post? I
think it would sidestep the problem in most cases.

> That radius of any spell (including detection) can be adjusted down by
> withholding spellcasting dice. Besides, when targeted with a detection
> spell, the combat spell would go off centered on the traget, not the anchor,
> I think.
>

Being that you have to use your spell pool w/out refreshing while casting both
spells into the focus and leave enough for the linking test I would think that
adjusting the radius by several meters would be dice that would be sorely missed
elsewhere. As to the centerpoint of the spell I refer to the example on p. 72
of MitS. It says, "the spell goes off in a radius centered on the anchor." So,
a Force 3 detection spell w/ a 6 Magic would have a range of 18 meters. So you
would have to withhold 12 dice to get the radius of the combat spell out to the
limit of the detection spell!

Still grinding gears on this one.:)

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 38
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:34:49 -0400
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> Again, why bother? More sucesses with ANY detection spell reveals more
> specific info about the object detected. 2 succeses should be enough to
> indicate rough speed, ans in "lethally fast" or "sitting in that guys
pocket
> slow". They added that nice table on p. 192- why not use it?

I'm under the impression that the table is used more for the Analyze
series of spells. The Detect Object spell states that the subject
detects all of a specified type of object within range of the sense
and knows their number and relative location. Which is all detection
really is. Analyzation covers gaining specific information and would
benefit from the added successes.

Besides why (not to mention how) would an object that has a Detect
Bullet spell need to know detailed information about the bullet?
Either it's a bullet or not. :)

--
Iridios
--
Freedom defined is freedom denied. (Illuminatus)

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
3:28:11 PM/159:00:00 (1) [no thud]
Message no. 39
From: Earthlink dejaffa@*********.net
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:38:16 -0700
<de-lurk>
Actually, I'm not sure that activating every time there's a bullet
within so many feet is necessarily a bug, if you're protecting
an exec whose security guards carry non-firearm armament.
This means that every time a gun-toting shadowrunner comes near,
the exec's bullet barrier comes up, making threatening him with
a gun a waste of time.
Granted, few security guards these days carry non-firearm weapons,
but, if the guards were phys-ads, this could be quite effective
...

Tee-Hee
</de-lurk>
----------------
Sent from a WebBox - http://www.webbox.com
FREE Web based Email, Files, Bookmarks, Calendar, People and
Great Ways to Share them with Others!
Message no. 40
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Anchoring Confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:32:23 GMT
>It occurs to me that most bullets are supersonic in speed. I would think
>that a spell could be designed to "Detect Supersonic velocity object".
>That would take care of the "fast moving relative to what?"
>considerations
>by relating the velocity to a consistent, depending on >pressure, humidity,
>etc. but still very consistent velocity that almost all bullets exceed.
>Very little else besides bullets will be >moving past the character at
>supersonic speeds. So, have I solved my >own problem or can someone poke a
>hole in this?

Someone else will probably have noticed this but...
In NAGEE 7 there is an article on silencing which talks about subsonic
amunition. Any corp who did their homework on someone with the above spell
anchored on them would just have to crack open a case of these, or maybe I'm
just an evil GM.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 41
From: Jonathan Hurley silvercat@***********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:54:08 -0400
From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>


> "Zebulin L. Magby" wrote:
> >
> > Iridios <iridios@*****.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > A bullet without casing or propellant is just a small piece of
metal,
> > no?
> > > > You want to have a Detect Small Piece of Metal spell? ;)
> > >
> > > A bullet is not just any small piece of metal.
> >
> > Ah, but it IS a small piece of metal.
>
> I also said, in a section you snipped out, "No, a bullet is a small
> piece of
> metal shaped into a certain configuration." Which makes it different
> from any other small piece of metal.
>
> > >
> > > By your argument Detect Troll should not work because a troll is a
> > > living being that stands erect and has two arms, two legs, and a
> > > head. Same as any other Metahuman.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps, but the spell was specifically designed to detect trolls.
>
> And a "Detect Fired Bullet" spell can detect bullets that have been
> fired.

Comment: you can name a spell any damn thing you choose. Rules-wankering
aside, a bullet for the purposes of my campaign and this spell means a
bullet (see caster's mental image for definition) that is no longer attached
to a cartridge (eliminating non-fired ones) that are moving at a fairly high
clip (fast enough to hurt), whose vector is proceeding towards the interior
of the sphere of detection. None of this requires any "thought" on the part
of the spell, nor is it particularly complicated. As someone pointed out,
the rules to sort out a troll from a metahuman are far more complex. For
that matter, if you are triggering an armor spell, dial the radius of the
detection spell down. No need for the huge radius of detection that you can
get.

As an aside, before firing, a bullet is part of a cartridge. Since is it a
single piece, it has its own simple aura, and wouldn't be picked up by a
detect bullet spell anyway. You would need a detect cartridge spell...
Message no. 42
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring Confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:13:43 -0500
Phil Smith wrote:

>Someone else will probably have noticed this but...
>In NAGEE 7 there is an article on silencing which talks about subsonic
amunition. >Any corp who did their homework on someone with the above spell
anchored on >them would just have to crack open a case of these, or maybe
I'mjust an evil GM.

Point taken, but IMHO, any corp that knows enough about an incoming shadowrun
team to know about anchored spell configurations probably knows enough to do all
sorts of other nasty ambush type stuff to team in question. Besides, any team
reckless enough to rack up that many successes on the "The wrong party" table in
the SR Companion probably deserves anything the corp has waiting for them.;)

Cheers,

Ken Vinson

"Ten years of watching shadowrun teams opt themselves out of the gene pool."
Message no. 43
From: Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Iridios <iridios@*****.com> wrote:

> >
> > Ah, but it IS a small piece of metal.
>
> I also said, in a section you snipped out, "No, a bullet is a
small
> piece of metal shaped into a certain configuration." Which makes
> it different from any other small piece of metal.
>

I meant to put a :) at the end of that sentence. Sorry about that.

> > >
> > > By your argument Detect Troll should not work because a troll
is a
> > > living being that stands erect and has two arms, two legs, and
a
> > > head. Same as any other Metahuman.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps, but the spell was specifically designed to detect
trolls.
>
> And a "Detect Fired Bullet" spell can detect bullets that have been
> fired.
>

That would make sense, if that spell existed. IMO, I'm not sure how a
spell such as this would work. Would it detect that the bullet had
powder burns? That it was traveling at a certain speed? With the
Detect Troll, it can detect that the (meta)human is a Troll...maybe
because they are big, heavy and, uh troll-like? :)

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
Message no. 44
From: Zebulin Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Jonathan Hurley <silvercat@***********.org> wrote:
>
> As an aside, before firing, a bullet is part of a cartridge. Since
is it a
> single piece, it has its own simple aura, and wouldn't be picked up
by a
> detect bullet spell anyway. You would need a detect cartridge
spell...
>
>

I disagree with this conjecture. There is still a bullet within the
cartridge, and that is what the detect bullet spell is looking for.
Else, it wouldn't be able to detect the bullets in a gun, or clip, or
pocket. What if a person coats a bullet in something (I don't know
what, but it could happen, just bear with me. :) Then the spell
wouldn't be able to detect the incoming substance-covered bullet.

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
Message no. 45
From: Manolis Skoulikas great_worm@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:59:25 +0300
Kenneth Vinson wrote:
>
> Andrew Norman wrote:
>
> I believe the hemispheric version is a thin barrier and thus a bullet
> ricocheting off the curved wall of the barrier won't necessarily bounce back
> right to the firer. Of course, everyone inside the barrier would be vulnerable
> to a ricochet.
>

Usually you cast Barrier spells at force 5 or less because of drain
problems. Almost all firearms have powers of 6+, so they would normally
pass through most barriers. But you are very right in assuming the
ricochet in case the bullet does not opass through. The random 1d6
successes from stray fire would probvably apply here, though at the
reduced power the bullet would hardly be a threat.

> P.S. No one has responded to the second point I raised about the bomb trap
> combination. Anybody?

Because it's too gruesome to even think about?
:)

>From experience the 7 successes threshold (you can't roll 7 successes to
resist on 6 dice(usual max) of INT)is easily accomplished with a couple
of rerolls and the worry about enough dice is miniscule when you include
some expendable spell foci into the equation.
Indeed the case is more dangerous if you cosider that barriers are
doubled for blast effects to go through, which means a 10S grenade (or a
force 6 elemental spell) would rebound on a force 5 barrier. Instant
tomato soup anyone?

The Wiz
Message no. 46
From: Manolis Skoulikas great_worm@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:59:30 +0300
Kenneth Vinson wrote:
>
> I was reading the anchoring rules in MitS and thought of a few practical
> problems that I'd like to post for inspection.
>
> 1. The Bullet Barrier w/Detect Bullet spell combination. My problems
> are:
> a. the Detect Bullet spell does not discriminate between moving
> v.s. stationary bullets, bullets headed towards you v.s. bullets headed
> toward the enemy, and so on. I don't think the spell creation rules
> allow for a Detect Bullet spell that only detects bullets speeding
> towards the possessor of the anchoring focus. That, I think, requires
> enough discrimination to fall under the "Spells can't think" caveat
> listed in MitS. So, how do keep your Bullet Barrier from popping up
> every time someone with a firearm, and thus bullets, steps within range
> of the detection spell?
>

If you can sense life forms with a spell AND place them in space
(with no extra successes) you can include a trajectory clause in
a spell that detects ''objects moving fast towards the caster''. By
''object'' you can determine anything that moves towards you
(specifically nad not at the generall vicinity at a speed faster than
a running human being(and some...just to make sure). That includes
shuriken knives, arrows, pistol rounds (most of them subsonic
actually, and therefore silencable with silencers), rockets, flame
particles, lasers and last but not least GRENADES(we all seemed to
have forgotten that).
Of course you should research the spell and allocate some serious
amount of dice in the anchoring process for the detection because
the TN is 6 (you never see the bullet that hits you and most people
are not polite enough to shoot you from the front) and as 'Mongoose'
acutely put it, it requires some extra sucesses for the spell to make
the distinction of speed and trajectory. IMO this is not subject to
the ''spells can't think'' clause because the spell detects the presence
of objects (everything made out of material) and then procceds to
agnowledge qualities of the target. If a spell can detect hostile
intentions (Detect enemies) it can certainly detect speed and
relative movement. It would n't be used as an example in MitS if
it was n't able to do so.


> 2. The area effect spell trap w/Detect (person, thing, etc)
> combination. Problems are:
> a. So you've got a Powerball or whatever in an expendable
> anchoring focus along with a Detect (whatever) spell attached. The
> range of the Detect (whatever) spell is Force x Magic, in meters. The
> radius of the Powerball is Magic, in meters. So...the only way to have
> the spell detonate with the target within the radius of the actual
> combat spell is to have the detection spell be Force 1. This, of
> course, makes it unlikely that the detection spell will actually detect
> anything to set off the trap. Sure you could throw in spell pool dice
> to boost the number of dice the detection spell throws but the poor sod
> who wanders into range is still resisting the detection spell with a TN#
> 2; not to mention taking valuable dice away from the combat spell.
>

Force 1 spells can be unresistable if you roll enough successes to
''flood'' the other person's resistance pool (intelligence in this
case).
Since anchoring is a process that requires time and karma, I would
expect the caster (if serious about it) to have acquired some expendable
spell foci and have an elemental present for extra dice.
A grade 4 initiate would be able to have 20 dice from foci and a force
10 elemental, 7 spell pool and 6+ sorcery= 43+ dice. If you take 14
dice from the equation to break the 7 successes threshold to break
the usual opponents resistance, you still have 29 dice for the
linking and spellcasting allocation. Enough for you? You got to pay
but you also have to be serious about it with all that karma involved...

> 3. I have a problem with the vagueness of the statement on p. 71 MitS
> where it says the Detect Bullet spell will, "...drop(ing) the Armor
> spell when the danger is past." What gives here? How does the Detect
> Bullet spell know "when the danger is past?" Is the danger past when a
> whole initiative pass goes by without a bullet in range? or maybe a
> combat turn? I'm curious to find out what others think of as qualifying
> to a non-thinking Detect Bullet spell as "the danger is past."
>

I also find this statement lame at the very least.
Yet I can see the reasoning behind it. A street sam would fire two
bursts and the the mage would have to make SIX drain tests at +2 drain
levels! He would n't even have to aim. Just point at the general
direction and we got a dead mage from his own drain.
What 'Mongoose' offered that the spell is ended by the specific
will of the owner of the focus, and not on its own, is more logical.
After all this is a parameter one can 'program' in the anchoring
process IMO.

> I can, and will, make some sort of set of house rules to take care
> of these issues but I'd like to know what some of the list magic gurus
> have to say on the subject first.
>
In no way am I including myself in the above category, but I hope it
all helped. Having second thoughts on some vague or unbalanced
rules is certainly healthy and in no way IMO qualifies one as a poor
artist that blames his tools. Would n't you agree?
:) *friendly smirk*

The Wiz
Message no. 47
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:49:54 -0500
From: Iridios <iridios@*****.com>

:> Again, why bother? More sucesses with ANY detection spell reveals more
:> specific info about the object detected. 2 succeses should be enough to
:> indicate rough speed, ans in "lethally fast" or "sitting in that guys
pocket
:> slow". They added that nice table on p. 192- why not use it?
:
:I'm under the impression that the table is used more for the Analyze
:series of spells. The Detect Object spell states that the subject
:detects all of a specified type of object within range of the sense
:and knows their number and relative location. Which is all detection
:really is. Analyzation covers gaining specific information and would
:benefit from the added successes.
:
:Besides why (not to mention how) would an object that has a Detect
:Bullet spell need to know detailed information about the bullet?
:Either it's a bullet or not. :)

Well, its certainly handy in the case of "detect life" or "detect
enemies"- again, I think those are inteded to tell you how nasty your enemy
is, what sort of life form is in the ares, etc. If you use a "detect guns"
spell, knowing the type of gun would be nice. I would think that yes, I'd
want to know what type of bullet I was detecting, and especially if it was
pointed in my direction and maybe moving...

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 48
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:12:33 -0500
Manolis Skoulikas wrote:

> In no way am I including myself in the above category, but I hope it
> all helped. Having second thoughts on some vague or unbalanced
> rules is certainly healthy and in no way IMO qualifies one as a poor
> artist that blames his tools. Would n't you agree?
> :) *friendly smirk*
>

Touche.:) The other day when I composed that response I had made the
mistake of posting something in the "talk back" section of the Ain't It Cool
News site and received the most unreasoned flaming backlash I've ever even
heard of. Needless to say, I was in a none too charitable mood. So...I
appreciate you taking my somewhat patronizing post in good humor. It was a
true story though, about Paul Hume bitching us out.:)

Cheers,

Ken Vinson
Message no. 49
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:52:46 +0100
"Zebulin L. Magby" wrote:
>
> Andrew Norman <andrew_norman@******.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > How do you people describe bullets hitting the barrier. Do they bounce off
> > or just disappear. If they bounce then the person inside firing the guy
> > could look like a piece a swiss cheese ;)
> >
>
> The bullets bounce in my game.
>
> > Also is the barrier a sphere of non-bulletness or just a thin wall on the
> > edge of the sphere.
> >
>
> I remember reading somewhere that you could do both with a barrier spell. Is
> that true or am I misremembering something?
>
> > If the spell is a solid area and the barrier causes bullets to bounce then
> > I would expect the gun to explode if fired.
> >
>
> Why would the gun explode???

I was thinking that if the bullet was inside a constant zone of bullet barrier
it would effectively be held still in the zone. Hence when the gun was fired
the barrel would do the banana split impression.

-Andrew

--
"We learn. That's what humans do."
-- Garibaldi in Babylon 5:"And Now For a Word"
Message no. 50
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Anchoring Confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:09:21 +0200
According to Phil Smith, at 20:32 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> Someone else will probably have noticed this but...
> In NAGEE 7 there is an article on silencing which talks about subsonic
> amunition.

It's in NAGEE 2, not 7 :)

> Any corp who did their homework on someone with the above spell
> anchored on them would just have to crack open a case of these, or
> maybe I'm just an evil GM.

Or look for other ways to assassinate you. Like poison you, or detonate a
bomb under your car...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 51
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:09:21 +0200
According to kawaii, at 14:38 on 20 Apr 00, the word on the street was...

> With the exception of a certain boom gun, I don't believe bullets are
> supersonic. If they were supersonic, you would cause a sonic boom each time
> your guns fired. =)

Erm... you _do_ cause a sonic boom every time you fire a gun (well, most
guns, anyway). It's not as big as that created by a jet fighter, but it is
there. If you need some figures, 9 mm Parabellum rounds, as fired by most
pistols and SMGs, are low-supersonic, in the order of 350 to 400 m/s,
while rifle rounds typically sit between 700 and 1000 m/s; go up a few
steps, to APFSDS tank gun rounds, and you'll end up with muzzle velocities
of 1500+ m/s. (FYI, the speed of sound is roughly 330 m/s.)

That's why "silenced" weapons often used a barrel with holes drilled in
it, so that propellant gas can bleed away without accelerating the bullet
to supersonic speeds, thereby avoiding creating a sonic boom. (The
alternative is to use a normal barrel and rounds with a lower propellant
charge, so the bullet also doesn't got supersonic.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 52
From: Zebulin L. Magby zebulingod@*****.com
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:04:49 -0700
Andrew Norman <andrew_norman@******.com> wrote:

> "Zebulin L. Magby" wrote:
> >
> > Why would the gun explode???
>
> I was thinking that if the bullet was inside a constant zone of bullet
barrier
> it would effectively be held still in the zone. Hence when the gun was
fired
> the barrel would do the banana split impression.
>
> -Andrew
>

Ahhh, I see where you are going with that now. Interesting, very
interesting. <EGMG>

*Zebulin begins to think about what else he could trap in a barrier and then
have explode....*

-Zebulin-Magby-
ICQ: 21932827
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++
Message no. 53
From: Jonathan Hurley silvercat@***********.org
Subject: Anchoring confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:09:38 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zebulin Magby" <zebulingod@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 1934 Hrs
Subject: Re: Anchoring confusion


> Jonathan Hurley <silvercat@***********.org> wrote:
> >
> > As an aside, before firing, a bullet is part of a cartridge. Since
> is it a
> > single piece, it has its own simple aura, and wouldn't be picked up
> by a
> > detect bullet spell anyway. You would need a detect cartridge
> spell...
> >
> >
>
> I disagree with this conjecture. There is still a bullet within the
> cartridge, and that is what the detect bullet spell is looking for.
> Else, it wouldn't be able to detect the bullets in a gun, or clip, or
> pocket. What if a person coats a bullet in something (I don't know
> what, but it could happen, just bear with me. :) Then the spell
> wouldn't be able to detect the incoming substance-covered bullet.

My reading of the Magic against vehicles section of SR3 suggests that you
*cannot* detect pieces of the whole (you can't target them...) So it
wouldn't be able to detect a bullet still attached to the cartridge. As I
said, use detect cartridge. As for the other (coating a bullet), the spell
can still draw on the caster's mental image of a bullet. remember, magic is
more art than science, even among hermetics. We can get away with using
"platonic ideals" for this kind of thing...

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Anchoring confusion, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!