Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Cyberjunkies
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:13:23 -0500 (EST)
>> We've got a guy in our group, and this boy is a tachie junkie. He's knows
>> how every piece of tech works... And while he'd not wired out and cybered
>> to the hilt munchkin-wise... He still has an Essence of 0.005!!! And none
>> of it is really nasty. He just has a LOT of little stuff...;-)
>
>We had a decker like that. Every little doodad in the book. All the SPUs,
>etc. (Lots of cute jokes about "ringing in the ears" every time he got a
>call on his headware telephone, though.)
>
>Lady Jestyr
>>

Well, to put it in perspective for you, our GM threw at us one of the
nastiest beasties you could imagine... It's been a running plotline for
quite sometime. This guy was creating Cyberbeast's, and came up with a
Cyber-Bandersnatch. Well, the Cybersnatch (no crude jokes, please) had
things like Move-By-Wire, Cybermancy, the works, including a Physical
Invisiblity Spell, so that even thermal couldn't pick up the camo'd
Cybersnatch...

Well, Mr. White (the character) had something that he the GM wasn't prepared
for... Ultrasound Sights on his guns, linked to his vision...!
Cyberweenies can really throw a monkey wrench in a GM's plans sometimes...:)
Ah well, just me 2 Nuyen's worth...



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Stay Cool, Stay Paranoid
Message no. 2
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
At 07:13 PM 9/8/96 -0500, Steven wrote:

>Well, the Cybersnatch (no crude jokes, please) had things like
Move-By-Wire, >Cybermancy, the works, including a Physical Invisibility
Spell, so that even
>thermal couldn't pick up the camo'd

Err, I guess you all forgot that Physical Invisibility only allows machines
to be affected by the spell, right?

>Well, Mr. White (the character) had something that he the GM wasn't prepared
>for... Ultrasound Sights on his guns, linked to his vision...!
>Cyberweenies can really throw a monkey wrench in a GM's plans sometimes...:)
>Ah well, just me 2 Nuyen's worth...

Argh, I recall someone having ultrasound once. Unfortunately, he was one of
the whinier players I've gamed with and ending up arguing about the filed of
vision it provided or something quite pointless after getting hit from the
side or behind by something...

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 3
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:29:30 -0500 (EST)
>>Err, I guess you all forgot that Physical Invisibility only allows machines
>to be affected by the spell, right?
>

Actually, since ultrasound isn't quite a mechanical means, I mean, the
object is still there, it just doesn't register. Ahhh, we had quite a bit
of debate over this, so we just decided that Ultrasound COULD pick it up...
It was one of those things where it was questionable, so our GM made a choice...
Umm, what does everyone else think on this subject? I can see both sides
of the coin.




Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Stay Cool, Stay Paranoid
Message no. 4
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:58:27 +1000 (EST)
> >>Err, I guess you all forgot that Physical Invisibility only allows machines
> >to be affected by the spell, right?
> >
>
> Actually, since ultrasound isn't quite a mechanical means, I mean, the
> object is still there, it just doesn't register. Ahhh, we had quite a bit
> of debate over this, so we just decided that Ultrasound COULD pick it up...
> It was one of those things where it was questionable, so our GM made a choice...
> Umm, what does everyone else think on this subject? I can see both sides
> of the coin.

Wellllll... not sure here </divert flame on> but afaik Invisibility and
all its cousins bend light around the subject to make it appear
invisible. The subject and the targets depend on the spell, but all the
spells have this in common: they bend light. Thus they work against IR &
laser sights, but since Ultrasound is NOT light <grin> I wouldn't rule
that any invisibility spell would work against it. Of course, you could
use a Silence spell (or similar) to great effect there...


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 01:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
At 11:29 PM 9/8/96 -0500, Steve wrote:

>>Err, I guess you all forgot that Physical Invisibility only allows machines
>>to be affected by the spell, right?
>
>Actually, since ultrasound isn't quite a mechanical means, I mean, the
>object is still there, it just doesn't register. Ahhh, we had quite a bit
>of debate over this, so we just decided that Ultrasound COULD pick it up...
>It was one of those things where it was questionable, so our GM made a
>choice...

Errr, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually.
Both invisibility and physical invisibility are useless against thermovision,
the only difference being the former will not conceal you from a security
camera while the later will.

Neither would help against ultrasound, IMHO, as it involves sounds, not vision.

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 6
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:26:06 +1000 (EST)
> Errr, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually.
> Both invisibility and physical invisibility are useless against thermovision,
> the only difference being the former will not conceal you from a security
> camera while the later will.

Well, they shouldn't be useless against thermo vision, since it's just
visual sensitivity to IR light. I don't think Invisibility discriminates
against which wavelengths of light it bends...

Though, by this reasoning, Invis and its friends might provide some
protection against lasers...


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 7
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 01:58:18 -0500 (EST)
>
>Well, they shouldn't be useless against thermo vision, since it's just
>visual sensitivity to IR light. I don't think Invisibility discriminates
>against which wavelengths of light it bends...
>
>Though, by this reasoning, Invis and its friends might provide some
>protection against lasers...
>
>
>Lady Jestyr
>

Hmmm, most interesting concept, Jestyr... Very interesting...:)



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Stay Cool, Stay Paranoid
Message no. 8
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:01:32 +0100
The Jestyr said on 13:58/ 9 Sep 96...

> Wellllll... not sure here </divert flame on> but afaik Invisibility and
> all its cousins bend light around the subject to make it appear
> invisible. The subject and the targets depend on the spell, but all the
> spells have this in common: they bend light. Thus they work against IR &
> laser sights, but since Ultrasound is NOT light <grin> I wouldn't rule
> that any invisibility spell would work against it. Of course, you could
> use a Silence spell (or similar) to great effect there...

We've struck yet another often-explored-but-never-conquered area of the
rules, I think :) At least, I seem to remember this one from the time I'd
only just joined the list...

Anyway, if Invisibility bends light, how does the person under its effect
see anything? So I think one solution was to say that non-improved Invis.
simply made living beings ignore your presence -- but then Awakenings came
out and that one was shot down too (see the Disregard spell on page 137).
The best way I've found of dealing with the spell is just saying that it
makes you invisible, as the name implies, except to IR vision, as the
description says. But I do agree about the ultrasound thing -- it's not
light, so Invis wouldn't help against it. Silence would be quite effective
in creating a "black zone" where ultrasound is useless (though it would
give you away because the thing can't see *anything* there. Come to think
of it, you should be able to use it as a "smokescreen" against an
ultrasound sight, because it wouldn't be able to see behind the Silence
spell's area of effect either).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The wrong way is trying to make everybody else do it the right way.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 21:23:58 +1000 (EST)
> give you away because the thing can't see *anything* there. Come to think
> of it, you should be able to use it as a "smokescreen" against an
> ultrasound sight, because it wouldn't be able to see behind the Silence
> spell's area of effect either).

That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: 9 Sep 96 08:37:00 -0400
Well, to put it in perspective for you, our GM threw at us one of the
nastiest beasties you could imagine... It's been a running plotline for
quite sometime. This guy was creating Cyberbeast's, and came up with a
Cyber-Bandersnatch. Well, the Cybersnatch (no crude jokes, please) had
things like Move-By-Wire, Cybermancy, the works, including a Physical
Invisiblity Spell, so that even thermal couldn't pick up the camo'd
Cybersnatch...

Well, Mr. White (the character) had something that he the GM wasn't prepared
for... Ultrasound Sights on his guns, linked to his vision...!
Cyberweenies can really throw a monkey wrench in a GM's plans sometimes...:)
Ah well, just me 2 Nuyen's worth...



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?


This is one thing that puzzles me....am I the only one that has
thought of making a FULL SENSORY invisibility spell???? Works against
ultrasound too(as well as barometric pressure detectors, air motion
detectors, pulse(heartbeat) detectors....you name it) of course, the
drain is a little nasty(but not THAT bad) but it has definitely saved
saved my hoop when the sec guards at a place weren't SUPPOSED to have
ultrasound and they did(kooky how that works).

chris
<Zero length text item>
Message no. 11
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:48:21 -0400 (EDT)
At 03:26 PM 9/9/96 +1000, Lady Jestyr wrote:

>> Errr, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually.
>> Both invisibility and physical invisibility are useless against thermovision,
>> the only difference being the former will not conceal you from a security
>> camera while the later will.
>
>Well, they shouldn't be useless against thermo vision, since it's just
>visual sensitivity to IR light. I don't think Invisibility discriminates
>against which wavelengths of light it bends...

Please read the spell description. It clearly states that body heat
isn't masked.

>Though, by this reasoning, Invis and its friends might provide some
>protection against lasers...

Only if it were a laser sight, possibly.

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 12
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:17:29 -0500 (EST)
>Come to think
>of it, you should be able to use it as a "smokescreen" against an
>ultrasound sight, because it wouldn't be able to see behind the Silence
>spell's area of effect either).
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
>
Hmmmm, Silence as a smokescreen. The possibiliteies that brings up.... Boy
am I glad Mr. Whoite isn't on this mailing list! <big grin>



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 13
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:43:58 -0500 (EST)
>> This is one thing that puzzles me....am I the only one that has
> thought of making a FULL SENSORY invisibility spell???? Works against
> ultrasound too(as well as barometric pressure detectors, air motion
> detectors, pulse(heartbeat) detectors....you name it) of course, the
> drain is a little nasty(but not THAT bad) but it has definitely saved
> saved my hoop when the sec guards at a place weren't SUPPOSED to have
> ultrasound and they did(kooky how that works).
>
> chris
><Zero length text item>
>
>
Nice idea... Write it up and post it here... I think we'd be interested in
seeing new spells, even unofficial ones...:)



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 14
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:46:11 +1000 (EST)
> >> Errr, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually.
> >> Both invisibility and physical invisibility are useless against
thermovision,
> >> the only difference being the former will not conceal you from a security
> >> camera while the later will.
> >
> >Well, they shouldn't be useless against thermo vision, since it's just
> >visual sensitivity to IR light. I don't think Invisibility discriminates
> >against which wavelengths of light it bends...
>
> Please read the spell description. It clearly states that body heat
> isn't masked.

Yeah, fair enough, I've already been informed so, but I don't take my
rulebooks to Uni and the problem's never come up for me so I didn't know
one way or the other...

> >Though, by this reasoning, Invis and its friends might provide some
> >protection against lasers...
>
> Only if it were a laser sight, possibly.

Why not other lasers? You can see them; they're certainly in the realm of
visible light...


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 15
From: GRANITE <granite@**.net>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 22:15:46 -0700
The Jestyr wrote:
> That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
>

Why not the laser bends around the invisible subject..After all it is a form
of light..and it is magic we're talking about...

--
-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serinity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serinity Prayer
Message no. 16
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:32:57 GMT + 2:00
@ >Come to think
@ >of it, you should be able to use it as a "smokescreen" against an
@ >ultrasound sight, because it wouldn't be able to see behind the Silence
@ >spell's area of effect either).
@ >
@ >--
@ >Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
@ >
@ Hmmmm, Silence as a smokescreen. The possibiliteies that brings up.... Boy
@ am I glad Mr. Whoite isn't on this mailing list! <big grin>

It depends on how far out the 'silence' extended, otherwise
you'll the ultrasound will just show a large 'hole' where it is not
recieving signals from. Busrt fire at rough center of ball, if you
have Maths Co and Rangefinder, fairly easy to find the extact middle.

My 0.02




Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to face the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 17:05:27 +1100
>Well, they shouldn't be useless against thermo vision, since it's just
>visual sensitivity to IR light. I don't think Invisibility discriminates
>against which wavelengths of light it bends...

The catch is that Invisibility doesn't stop light shinig from YOU... and
heat is coming from you. (Also, it must be a bit more sophisticated then
the mere bending of light rays, as then you wouldn't be able to see,
either. For my money, it makes you transparent)


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 18
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 03:26:00 -0500 (EST)
>@ Hmmmm, Silence as a smokescreen. The possibiliteies that brings up.... Boy
>@ am I glad Mr. Whoite isn't on this mailing list! <big grin>
>
> It depends on how far out the 'silence' extended, otherwise
>you'll the ultrasound will just show a large 'hole' where it is not
>recieving signals from. Busrt fire at rough center of ball, if you
>have Maths Co and Rangefinder, fairly easy to find the extact middle.
>
>
Good point... I'm not sure on the range of the spell itself, but I would
say that even with the aforementioned cybertoys, you would still have a
penalty... Of course, we are talking some very rare and unusual cases... I
would seriously start thinking of a new hobby if cases such as these became
commonplace...:) Oh well...



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 19
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:36:11 +1000 (EST)
> > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
> >
>
> Why not the laser bends around the invisible subject..After all it is a form
> of light..and it is magic we're talking about...
>

Wellllll.. I wouldn't go that far, else everyone trots around with Imp
Invis and MP lasers, twostep lasers etc are no longer scary. But the
spell oughta help a *bit*



Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 20
From: The WARLOCK <BADBENE@***********.HTL-TEX.AC.AT>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:56:01 +0100
Lady Jestyr wrote:
> That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)

Give me that spell option and no laser will ever scratch me again.
56 successes at the enchoring is all that I need, and I've got more in
my armor spell.

WARLOCK
Message no. 21
From: "Ferri Pagano" <Ferri_Pagano_at_STRM__Amsterdam1@******.com>
Subject: Re[2]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 09:38:23 EST
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lady J. Wrote...



%> Errr, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually.
%> Both invisibility and physical invisibility are useless against
%thermovision, > the only difference being the former will not conceal you from
%a security
%> camera while the later will.

%Well, they shouldn't be useless against thermo vision, since it's just
%visual sensitivity to IR light. I don't think Invisibility discriminates
%against which wavelengths of light it bends...

%Though, by this reasoning, Invis and its friends might provide some
%protection against lasers...


%Lady Jestyr
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Using invisibility, your BODY is not visible, but if thermo is used, the air you
breathe out, specially on a cold night, is very visible.

Ferri


------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 22
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:04:16 +1000 (EST)
> Lady Jestyr wrote:
> > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
>
> Give me that spell option and no laser will ever scratch me again.
> 56 successes at the enchoring is all that I need, and I've got more in
> my armor spell.

*rofl* If you can get 56 successes on it, you deserve it!

(Before anyone flames me, think:
1. He's going to be VERY invisible. Poor social life, yes?
2. There's always sniper rifles and Panther ACs...)


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 23
From: The WARLOCK <BADBENE@***********.HTL-TEX.AC.AT>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:43:29 +0100
> > Lady Jestyr wrote:
> > > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> > > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
> >
> Warlock wrote:
> > Give me that spell option and no laser will ever scratch me again.
> > 56 successes at the enchoring is all that I need, and I've got more in
> > my armor spell.
>
Lady Jestyr wrote:
> *rofl* If you can get 56 successes on it, you deserve it!
Try using elementals, fetish foci and a lot of karma pool when
enchoring the spell. You need to roll that much successes only
once, right?
>
> (Before anyone flames me, think:
> 1. He's going to be VERY invisible. Poor social life, yes?
Never enchored a spell before, right?
> 2. There's always sniper rifles and Panther ACs...)
Still Lasers got to be the deadliest weapons! My bullet barrier
or physical barrier won't protect me.

WARLOCK
Message no. 24
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:03:07 +0100
Andre' Selmer said on 8:32/10 Sep 96...

> It depends on how far out the 'silence' extended, otherwise
> you'll the ultrasound will just show a large 'hole' where it is not
> recieving signals from. Busrt fire at rough center of ball, if you
> have Maths Co and Rangefinder, fairly easy to find the extact middle.

So? Don't stand in the center of the AoE. Cast a Silence spell and an
Improved Invisibility spell, and go lie down at the edge of the Silence's
AoE.
Matter of fact, don't do anything predictable to the opposition if you
can help it...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I swore I'd never ever be like him...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:03:07 +0100
The Jestyr said on 21:23/ 9 Sep 96...

> That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)

If invisibility spells bend light, I think lasers would have problems
hitting someone under such a spell. +1 armor per two successes sounds okay
to me (before or after halving the armor, though?)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I swore I'd never ever be like him...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 26
From: "Ferri Pagano" <Ferri_Pagano_at_STRM__Amsterdam1@******.com>
Subject: Re[2]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 17:40:15 EST
__

> > Lady Jestyr wrote:
> > > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact

> > > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
> >
> Warlock wrote:
> > Give me that spell option and no laser will ever scratch me again.
> > 56 successes at the enchoring is all that I need, and I've got more in
> > my armor spell.
>
Lady Jestyr wrote:
> *rofl* If you can get 56 successes on it, you deserve it!
Try using elementals, fetish foci and a lot of karma pool when
enchoring the spell. You need to roll that much successes only
once, right?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
=> You still may add ONLY dice UP TO your magic rating to the success test, the
=> other 40 or so dice you can only use for a MEGA drain resistance
=> test!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Before anyone flames me, think:
> 1. He's going to be VERY invisible. Poor social life, yes?
Never enchored a spell before, right?

:) He can always dispel it....but it sounds expensive... :)
<snip>
Ferri-
Message no. 27
From: "Ferri Pagano" <Ferri_Pagano_at_STRM__Amsterdam1@******.com>
Subject: Re[2]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 17:33:02 EST
-------------------------------


> Lady Jestyr wrote:
> > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
>
> Give me that spell option and no laser will ever scratch me again.
> 56 successes at the enchoring is all that I need, and I've got more in
> my armor spell.

*rofl* If you can get 56 successes on it, you deserve it!

(Before anyone flames me, think:
1. He's going to be VERY invisible. Poor social life, yes?
2. There's always sniper rifles and Panther ACs...)


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
-
nope, better yet, use grenades. "hey, I know there is
a mega invisible guy over there somewhere, I only know
he is in that room, I? could throw a grenade at him
but I'd never hit him <tn veel> so I'll throw a
grenade at a point in the room <tn 4 or so>, chunky
salsa galore with a lot of successes"
The best remedy I've found to prevent munchkinization
is to show the pc's what it can do.

oh btw. sniper rifles on an invisible guy??? how is
the sniper to hit? by smell? :)


Ferri
Message no. 28
From: GRANITE <granite@**.net>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:06:03 -0700
Gurth wrote:
> If invisibility spells bend light, I think lasers would have problems
> hitting someone under such a spell. +1 armor per two successes sounds okay
> to me (before or after halving the armor, though?)
>

I would say..After..
--
-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serinity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serinity Prayer
Message no. 29
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:46:06 +0000
On 10 Sep 96 at 3:26, Steven Ratkovich wrote:
> >@ Hmmmm, Silence as a smokescreen. [snip]
> > It depends on how far out the 'silence' extended, otherwise
> >you'll the ultrasound will just show a large 'hole' where it is not
> >recieving signals from.[snip]

> Good point... I'm not sure on the range of the spell itself, but I would
> say that even with the aforementioned cybertoys, you would still have a
> penalty... Of course, we are talking some very rare and unusual cases... I
> would seriously start thinking of a new hobby if cases such as these became
> commonplace...:) Oh well...
Hm... I'd cast the spell on the person with the ultrasound....would make much
more sense IMHO, especially since it is _not_ resisted...

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 30
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:16:14 -0500 (EST)
>oh btw. sniper rifles on an invisible guy??? how is
>the sniper to hit? by smell? :)
>
>
> Ferri
>
Depending on your personal theory on how the Invis Spell works, and whether
we're talking improved or not, either thermo or ultrasound sights...:)

I think this brings us full circle to how the cyberjunkies topic got
started...:)

Just a worthless observation...=>



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 31
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:20:34 -0500 (EST)
>Gurth wrote:
>> If invisibility spells bend light, I think lasers would have problems
>> hitting someone under such a spell. +1 armor per two successes sounds okay
>> to me (before or after halving the armor, though?)
>>
>
>I would say..After..
>--
>-------------------------------GRANITE
>
I would agree, otherwise, it would be simpler (and much less math for those
of us numerically challenged) to say that EVERY success gave a +1 and then
halve it...

Something like that...



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 32
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:22:26 -0500 (EST)
>> Good point... I'm not sure on the range of the spell itself, but I would
>> say that even with the aforementioned cybertoys, you would still have a
>> penalty... Of course, we are talking some very rare and unusual cases... I
>> would seriously start thinking of a new hobby if cases such as these became
>> commonplace...:) Oh well...
>Hm... I'd cast the spell on the person with the ultrasound....would make much
>more sense IMHO, especially since it is _not_ resisted...
>
>
GOOD IDEA! Boy this would really throw them for a loop and would basically
blind the ultrasound....:) Very nice... You are evil... I like it!:)



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 33
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:23:37 +1000 (EST)
> > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)
>
> If invisibility spells bend light, I think lasers would have problems
> hitting someone under such a spell. +1 armor per two successes sounds okay
> to me (before or after halving the armor, though?)

Before, naturally, else I'd have said "every two successes lowers the
laser's power level by one". :)

Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 34
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:45:03 +1000 (EST)
> oh btw. sniper rifles on an invisible guy??? how is
> the sniper to hit? by smell? :)

Well, 'twas anchored rather than quickened, so I assumed 'twas not going
to be on all the time. ANyway, why not by smell? One of our players
ALWAYS has improved smell mods... :)


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 35
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:05:46 PDT
>So? Don't stand in the center of the AoE. Cast a Silence spell and an
>Improved Invisibility spell, and go lie down at the edge of the Silence's
>AoE.
>Matter of fact, don't do anything predictable to the opposition if you
>can help it...

Cast it on the guy w/Ultrasound Goggles.
Message no. 36
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 03:55:20 +0000
On 11 Sep 96 at 8:45, The Jestyr wrote:
> > oh btw. sniper rifles on an invisible guy??? how is
> > the sniper to hit? by smell? :)
>
> Well, 'twas anchored rather than quickened, so I assumed 'twas not going
> to be on all the time. ANyway, why not by smell? One of our players
> ALWAYS has improved smell mods... :)
*grin* ...and pry the target hasn't washed... :-)
In fact, "Invisibility" is quite a misnomer IMHO, since SRII p. 156 states
"Double the number of successes to get the target number for the observer's
Perception Test." So someone with keen senses (and a high Int, of course) does
have a chance to see an invisible enemy. Or you take someone with astral
perception, maybe a physical adept? :-)

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 37
From: Loki <loki@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:21:38 -0700
Lady Jestyr wrote:
> > That was how I was thinking of it, too. And WRT the idea of Invis bending
> > light... how about Invis (or at least Imp Invis) giving you an extra
> > point of Impact Armour per two successes vs lasers? (After all, the Impact
> > Armour has to be halved when you resist, so it's not TOO munchkinny...)

In my opinion either form of Invisibility is an illusion. If the
opponent is able to see you (making his perception test at the
appropriate T#) he has seen through the invisibility spell and broken
the illusion. He no longer suffers the penalties to see, aim, shoot, or
hit you...thus I wouldn't allow it any armour bonus either. Now if he
was blind firing and still under the illusion of the spell, I would say
the armor bonus would apply, or maybe the laser would just be
misdirected as the light is bending around the caster...

@>-,--'--- Loki

CLARKE'S THIRD LAW:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Poisoned Elves http://www.netzone.com/~loki/
Message no. 38
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Cyberjunkies
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:12:31 +0100
The Jestyr said on 8:23/11 Sep 96...

> > If invisibility spells bend light, I think lasers would have problems
> > hitting someone under such a spell. +1 armor per two successes sounds okay
> > to me (before or after halving the armor, though?)
>
> Before, naturally, else I'd have said "every two successes lowers the
> laser's power level by one". :)

Ah, but here we're getting into the technical bits: lowering the Power
Level has the same effects as increasing the Armor Rating, under normal
circumstances. As soon as you start figuring in armor-piercing effects,
the two start to differ. Since SR modifies the Armor Rating if the target
gets better protection, that's what an invis spell should do against a
laser.
I think the increase should come *after* halving the Armor Rating,
because the spell has no effect on the armor itself, and in effect forms a
separate layer of armor against the laser; once the beam gets through the
spell, it encounters the Impact armor as normal.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I swore I'd never ever be like him...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 39
From: "Ferri Pagano" <Ferri_Pagano_at_STRM__Amsterdam1@******.com>
Subject: Re[4]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 14:53:11 EST
-----------------------------------------------

%> oh btw. sniper rifles on an invisible guy??? how
%is > the sniper to hit? by smell? :)

%Well, 'twas anchored rather than quickened, so I assumed 'twas not
%going to be on all the time. ANyway, why not by smell? One of our
%players ALWAYS has improved smell mods... :)


%Lady Jestyr
-----------------------------------------------

Is the pc one of those who simply don't believe in bathing ? :)
I have to say I've seen people I'd allow full aiming based on smell alone...
pity the pc with enhanced smell around one of those...hmmm... may even warrant
some penalties....<evil GM's mind at work>

Ferri
Message no. 40
From: Jamie Houston <s430472@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Cyberjunkies
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:59:21 +1000 (EST)
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Ferri Pagano wrote:

>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> %> oh btw. sniper rifles on an invisible guy??? how
> %is > the sniper to hit? by smell? :)
>
> %Well, 'twas anchored rather than quickened, so I assumed 'twas not
> %going to be on all the time. ANyway, why not by smell? One of our
> %players ALWAYS has improved smell mods... :)
>
>
> %Lady Jestyr
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Is the pc one of those who simply don't believe in bathing ? :)
> I have to say I've seen people I'd allow full aiming based on smell alone...
> pity the pc with enhanced smell around one of those...hmmm... may even warrant
> some penalties....<evil GM's mind at work>
>
I don't think there'd be any penalties at all...of course I'm biased,
being the pc LadyJ is referring to...:)

Hamish, the mad Scot

______________________________________________________________________
Jamie Houston * "If a kid asks why it's raining,
aka Bollox, Hamish,(and * a cute thing to tell him is "God is
lots of other unmentionable * crying"...And if he asks why God is
pseudonyms) * crying, another cute thing to tell
s430472@*****.student.gu.edu.au * him is "It's probably something
Griffith Uni * you did!"
______________________________________________________________________

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cyberjunkies, 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!