Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:50:21 +0000
As if the man heard us speaking on the ether, I just received a reply
to a reply from FASAMike. Several interesting points he brings up,
so I thought I would Forward it to all of you to disect....

By far the most disturbing thing is the "sustained spells don't work
out of LOS". Now, as we already know (FAB) these answers aren't
truly "official", but they carry a bit of weight in my mind. Steven
Kenson, if you're reading, I'd love to hear your comments on the
magic answers, and you'll doubtless see a huge response to some of
these answers, showing what areas need to be clearly stated in SR3.

Open fire guys:

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: FASAMike@***.com
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:36:00 -0500 (EST)
To: bxb121@***.edu
Subject: Re: FASAMike, work your tushy off!


In a message dated 7/6/97 06:32:15 PM, you (Brett) wrote:

(Sorry for the delay...I just can't seem to get caught up on the e-mail)

>> >1)What happens when an Elemental goes out of LOS of the mage?
>>
>> It is no longer contolled and it takes off to it's astral home (even
>> if it had services left). Never let a Elemental get out of sight.
>> This is one of those questions that I don't actually understand at
>> all. How would this come about?
>
>Examples that have come up are:
>Blinking.
>Turning around.
>Getting knocked unconscious.
>Having a door in between you closed.
>
>See the point? What really defines LOS here...the ability to see, or
>actually seeing.

Actually in most of these example I don't see the point, but that's not the
issue. I have no idea in the world how blinking can even come up in the game,
but the LOS is not affected by blinking or even something extreme as rubbing
ones eyes. You are correct on the ability to see rather than actually seeing.
Therefore, turning around also does not affect the spirit.

>> >4)CAn you sustain a spell if the target move out of LOS?
>>
>> Here is another one of those questiosn I just don't understand how
>> it comes up. If there is no target what is the caster sustaining a
>> spell for?
>
>Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
>Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
>still work?)

The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!

>> >9)Does masking a spell lock mask the spell it locks too?
>>
>> I don't beleive it says anywhere that you can tell what the spell is
>> by the spell lock. If so please point that out to me.
>
>Interesting Point, but I was thinking more along the lines of just
>not being noticeable astrally. If I have a Force 3 Personal bullet
>Barrier Locked on me, Do I only need to mask 1 point (the spell lock)
>to not be an astral beacon, or do I need 4 points (1 for the lock and
>3 for the spell) to hide myself? I know that spells that are locked
>tend to be treated as Force 1 for grounding, but they still WORK as a
>higher Force...Do I then treat a locked spell as a Force 1 for
>everything, or just for Grounding?

Force 1 for just for grounding. You would need to mask the entire force of
the spell an lock (in this case 4).

> >I Have Fun!
> >I Play Games!
> >I buy Shadowrun!

>So do I! Target: UCAS looks good so far. (Even if I am horribly jealous of
Fro, >Granite, Spike, and Bull :)

Thanks...Target: UCAS is one of our best selling place books ever...it's
already up for a second printing...

>New Questions:
>
>How do Otaku download files? (Headware memory, 2nd datajack to
>offline storage, or just "in their mind, same place Channels are"?)

Good one...we are in the process of deconstructing the otaku to figure out
such basic questions as that one. So I really don't have an answer for that
one yet.

>Does non-vehicle hardened ARmor reduce the Damage Level 1 like
>Vehicle armor does?

Actually in Rigger 2 the power reduction comes from the fact that you are
firing at a vehilce. The armor penalty is different. You can see that on p.
53 of R2. Armor only affectt eh Power Rating of the weapon not the level.


>If you take a FAB 10-ton weight and...just kidding. :)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

>Also, who do I mail to with BattleTech/Mechwarrior questions?

E-Mail Randall at FASAInfo@***.com
----End Forwarded Message----

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 2
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:24:23 GMT
Brett Borger writes

FASAMike vs Steve Kenson

now theres a subject line ! :), given this is 'probably' the first
time Steves seen these answers.

> Open fire guys:
>
Forward batteries loaded :)
While i'm about it may i point out to the escapee that just dived
under gurths stairs i dumped a Carp mine under there the other day :)

From FASAMike@***.com
> >> >4)CAn you sustain a spell if the target move out of LOS?
> >>
> >> Here is another one of those questiosn I just don't understand how
> >> it comes up. If there is no target what is the caster sustaining a
> >> spell for?
> >
> >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
> >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
> >still work?)
>
> The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!
>
The reason this one comes up is that SR2 states that you require LOS
for CASTING spells, it NEVER makes any such claim about what is
required to be allowed to sustain them once you have cast them.
I origonally assumed as Mike answers but i have seen GM's pull 'cast
spell let folks wander off' and have used it myself as the rules
don't tell us no, if FASA intend this to be the interpretation could
it go in SR3 in print as at the moment the 'in print' rules leave the
'invisible sammie' trick perfectly legal. [and i may say a supurb way
to combine magic and mundane, the mage picks up the penalty while the
sammie does the job and remains invulnerable to magic (the worst the
sec mage can do to him is destroy the spell)]

> >> >9)Does masking a spell lock mask the spell it locks too?
> >
> >Interesting Point, but I was thinking more along the lines of just
> >not being noticeable astrally. If I have a Force 3 Personal bullet
> >Barrier Locked on me, Do I only need to mask 1 point (the spell lock)
> >to not be an astral beacon, or do I need 4 points (1 for the lock and
> >3 for the spell) to hide myself? I know that spells that are locked
> >tend to be treated as Force 1 for grounding, but they still WORK as a
> >higher Force...Do I then treat a locked spell as a Force 1 for
> >everything, or just for Grounding?
>
> Force 1 for just for grounding. You would need to mask the entire force of
> the spell an lock (in this case 4).
>
Ouch. So what happens if you mask only the lock (spell visible,
destructable in astarl combat but no grounding?), just the spell?,
wouldn't 'masking equal to spell force (ie 3) be more reasonable,
(given for a force 1 spell you are masking a lock holding a spell
both / entire consruct force 1)

At least the nasty interpretation solves one other matter, if the
spell is masked seperately you can mask quickenings! In fact given
you don't have to mask the lock as well they are twice as efficient
(for force 1 stuff) in masks and so MUCH MUCH superior!

----------------

Rather than me pestering Mike any chance you can collate comments and
get answers to our comments on this from him?

Mark
Message no. 3
From: "Mark A. Imbriaco" <mark@******.NET>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:40:11 -0500
> >> >1)What happens when an Elemental goes out of LOS of the mage?
> >>
> >> It is no longer contolled and it takes off to it's astral home (even
> >> if it had services left). Never let a Elemental get out of sight.
> >> This is one of those questions that I don't actually understand at
> >> all. How would this come about?
> >
> >Examples that have come up are:
> >Blinking.
> >Turning around.
> >Getting knocked unconscious.
> >Having a door in between you closed.
> >
> >See the point? What really defines LOS here...the ability to see, or
> >actually seeing.
>
> Actually in most of these example I don't see the point, but that's not the
> issue. I have no idea in the world how blinking can even come up in the game,
> but the LOS is not affected by blinking or even something extreme as rubbing
> ones eyes. You are correct on the ability to see rather than actually seeing.
> Therefore, turning around also does not affect the spirit.

This really bothers me. Does it only apply if the elemental/spirit
is not currently carrying out a service? This has been contradicted
so many times by having elementals/spirits doing guard duty, or
looking for something for a mage/shaman that I'm having a hard time
swallowing it.

-Mark
Message no. 4
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:48:20 GMT
Mark A. Imbriaco writes
> > >See the point? What really defines LOS here...the ability to see, or
> > >actually seeing.
> >
> > Actually in most of these example I don't see the point, but that's not the
> > issue. I have no idea in the world how blinking can even come up in the game,
> > but the LOS is not affected by blinking or even something extreme as rubbing
> > ones eyes. You are correct on the ability to see rather than actually seeing.
> > Therefore, turning around also does not affect the spirit.
>
> This really bothers me. Does it only apply if the elemental/spirit
> is not currently carrying out a service?
no, to elementals carrying out services under the rules in SR2.
Spirits have domain rather than LOS restrictions.

> This has been contradicted
> so many times by having elementals/spirits doing guard duty,
Ah, see the rules for permanently binding an elemental in GR2, this
costs karma equal to its force rating but separarte s the elemental
and its counjourer, all the 'guard elementals' found in various
adventures are legal using this rule though its so well hidden in GR2
folks are easily excused for not knowing about it.

> looking for something for a mage/shaman that I'm having a hard time
> swallowing it.
>
The 'looking for people' is either 'nature spirits' which have domain
not LOS restrictions (LOS only ever refered to for elementals) or
watchers which being in GR2 follow the rules listed there (which
superseed SR2 in this case, and they aren't elementals).

Mark
Message no. 5
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:04:31 +0000
> ----------------
>
> Rather than me pestering Mike any chance you can collate comments and
> get answers to our comments on this from him?

Sure....Although as this was his reply to a message sent on 7/6/97 I
don't think we can assume a quick response. :)

The SR3 Wishlist will be posted as soon as I get through all the
exams I have this week.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 6
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:24:04 +1100
At 13:24 4/11/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
>> >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
>> >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
>> >still work?)
>>
>> The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!
>>
>The reason this one comes up is that SR2 states that you require LOS
>for CASTING spells, it NEVER makes any such claim about what is
>required to be allowed to sustain them once you have cast them.

On the other hand the BBB does explicitly state that other characters may
only benefit from a magician's spell defence dice while they are in view of
the magician. By extrapolation, this could be interpreted as applying to
spell sustaining as well. This is, of course, not our chosen interpretation.

While we're on the subject: For you people who allow a target to wander
out-of-view of the sustaining magician - how far do you allow the targets
to wander before the spell fails?

Chris




_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart: "You
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> know, just once I'd like to meet an alien
Canberra, Australia menace that wasn't immune to bullets."
Message no. 7
From: Mirko Cegledi <storm@**********.INFORMATIK.FH-DORTMUND.DE>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:12:47 +0100
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Chris Maxfield wrote:

> At 13:24 4/11/97 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
> >> >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
> >> >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
> >> >still work?)
(...)
>
> While we're on the subject: For you people who allow a target to wander
> out-of-view of the sustaining magician - how far do you allow the targets
> to wander before the spell fails?
>
> Chris
>

Erm... I think that sustained spells are like a television with a remote
control: The remote control has to be in LOS to the television if you
want to switch it on. Then you may throw your remote control out of the
window in front of an passing TGV. The operating television won't care
about that. Furthermore, eat my .sig if I am not right but, even if the
target of the sustained spell isn't in LOS to the magician, what's about
the rumor about that astral thread between the magician and his sustained
spell? I think there is a paragraph about that in the Grimoire resp. the
magic part of SRII. Am I wrong?

--
q: how many zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?
a: none. the universe spins the bulb and the zen master stays out of the
way.

mirko cegledi, dept. of computer sciences, fh-dortmund, germany
Message no. 8
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:10:31 GMT
Chris Maxfield writes
> >The reason this one comes up is that SR2 states that you require LOS
> >for CASTING spells, it NEVER makes any such claim about what is
> >required to be allowed to sustain them once you have cast them.
>
> On the other hand the BBB does explicitly state that other characters may
> only benefit from a magician's spell defence dice while they are in view of
> the magician.
It does but again thats in LOS at 'the time of the event' (comparing
event to casting spell)

> By extrapolation, this could be interpreted as applying to
> spell sustaining as well. This is, of course, not our chosen interpretation.
>
i suppose you could, the other thing is none LOS spellcasting already
exists through ritual sorcery and the link the sustained spell
provides to the target could be classed as enough to sustain the
spell (but not cast more through)

> While we're on the subject: For you people who allow a target to wander
> out-of-view of the sustaining magician - how far do you allow the targets
> to wander before the spell fails?
>
I have been allowing this with no effective range limit, though
roleplaying places a limit, there being a required level of
concentration needed to sustain a spell so therefore although the
rules don't list a limit there is a limit to how long you may sustain
a spell for. (i usually think in terms of 10 - 20 minutes being
pretty hard, even allowing for the fact that magicians are used to
concentrating (required for spellcasting), unless its part of
concentrating on sneaking about etc or soemthing else is going on to
help the magicians boredom factor)

Mark
Message no. 9
From: Scott Roberts <shayd@********.NET>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:09:57 -0500
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Brett Borger wrote:

> By far the most disturbing thing is the "sustained spells don't work
> out of LOS". Now, as we already know (FAB) these answers aren't
> truly "official", but they carry a bit of weight in my mind. Steven
> Kenson, if you're reading, I'd love to hear your comments on the
> magic answers, and you'll doubtless see a huge response to some of
> these answers, showing what areas need to be clearly stated in SR3.

With all due respect to Messrs. Mulvehill and Kenson, answers like the
ones Mr. Mulvehill gives are another reason to keep in mind that this game
is one which is designed to be interpreted by the GamesMasters, and not by
the Holy Line Developers On High (or Dark Lords, as the case may be).

While I'm certainly understanding of the rationale behind these answers,
keep in mind that Mike and many others have to (because it is their job)
spend more time working on developing and editing and less time actually
_playing_ the game than most players--and hence their answers are often
less than adequate when compared to the experience that a gamesmaster has
with his or her players. Speaking as someone who has GMed for over 1000
players every day for the last 4 years (on Shadowrun MUX), the game
balance issues which we've run into go far beyond many things the
designers ever even conceived of when they write the rules. Players have
a really ANNOYING (grin) habit of "testing rules to destruction", and no
game designer has the ability to comprehend every single situation while
they're designing.

In other words, feel free to completely ignore what Mr. Mulvehill says in
the following answers, 'cuz he probably didn't do what your players are
gonna do if you spring these rulings on them: namely, come up with 47 book
quotes and 233 different sections of novels and 4,533 incidents in your
own game where things would have been totally different if these rules
were in effect.

> >> >1)What happens when an Elemental goes out
of LOS of the mage? > >>
> >> It is no longer contolled and it takes off to it's astral home (even
> >> if it had services left). Never let a Elemental get out of sight.
> >> This is one of those questions that I don't actually understand at
> >> all. How would this come about?

Except when it's on Remote Service, of course. Blinking, turning around,
doors, etcetera...and when your elemental goes out of LOS of the mage, you
don't neccessarily lose all services, he just goes back to his home plane
and must be called again.

Unconsciousness or death is the only situation where an elemental will go
uncontrolled per the rules. LOS merely defines the situation required to
give the order, rather than to actually continue the service (note also
that you can, indeed, SLEEP while you have elementals "on call" in their
home plane without losing their services.) So Mr. Mulvehill is slightly
off in his answer, IMOHO.

> >> >4)CAn you sustain a spell if the target move out of LOS?
> >> Here is another one of those questiosn I just don't understand how
> >> it comes up. If there is no target what is the caster sustaining a
> >> spell for?
> >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
> >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
> >still work?)
> The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!

This, again, is a problem with the standard situation present in dozens of
novels, etcetera. It's not an easy one.


> >> >9)Does masking a spell lock mask the spell it locks too?
> >>
> >> I don't beleive it says anywhere that you can tell what the spell is
> >> by the spell lock. If so please point that out to me.
> >Interesting Point, but I was thinking more along the lines of just
> >not being noticeable astrally. If I have a Force 3 Personal bullet
> >Barrier Locked on me, Do I only need to mask 1 point (the spell lock)
> >to not be an astral beacon, or do I need 4 points (1 for the lock and
> >3 for the spell) to hide myself? I know that spells that are locked
> >tend to be treated as Force 1 for grounding, but they still WORK as a
> >higher Force...Do I then treat a locked spell as a Force 1 for
> >everything, or just for Grounding?
>
> Force 1 for just for grounding. You would need to mask the entire force of
> the spell an lock (in this case 4).

He's wrong in this case. A locked spell and spell lock is at Force 1 for
the purposes of any magical tests (including masking) against it. I
believe the Grimoire II (although I could be wrong as I don't have it
handy) states that spell locks count as 1 point for this. Why would it be
otherwise?


> >How do Otaku download files? (Headware memory, 2nd datajack to
> >offline storage, or just "in their mind, same place Channels are"?)
>
> Good one...we are in the process of deconstructing the otaku to figure out
> such basic questions as that one. So I really don't have an answer for that
> one yet.
>

IMOHO, they should just ask Paul Hume :)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You Don't Like My Point Of View, You Think That I'm Insane..."
Scott "Shayd" Roberts
shayd@**.cybernex.net ** http://www.cybernex.net/shayd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:26:26 -0500
On Tuesday, November 04, 1997 08:24, Mark
Steedman[SMTP:M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK] wrote:
> Brett Borger writes
> > >> >4)CAn you sustain a spell if the target move out of LOS?
> > >>
> > >> Here is another one of those questiosn I just don't understand how
> > >> it comes up. If there is no target what is the caster sustaining a
> > >> spell for?
> > >
> > >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
> > >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
> > >still work?)
> >
> > The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!
> >
> The reason this one comes up is that SR2 states that you require LOS
> for CASTING spells, it NEVER makes any such claim about what is
> required to be allowed to sustain them once you have cast them.
> I origonally assumed as Mike answers but i have seen GM's pull 'cast
> spell let folks wander off' and have used it myself as the rules
> don't tell us no, if FASA intend this to be the interpretation could
> it go in SR3 in print as at the moment the 'in print' rules leave the
> 'invisible sammie' trick perfectly legal. [and i may say a supurb way
> to combine magic and mundane, the mage picks up the penalty while the
> sammie does the job and remains invulnerable to magic (the worst the
> sec mage can do to him is destroy the spell)]
>

Except that a Module (Dark Angel, AFAIK) has some bad guys who have spells
sustained on them by mages who are no longer in LOS. Me, I'd rather have
sustaining require LOS (or some of the funkier things you can do with
ritual sorcery) simply because it makes the magic system more symmetrical.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 11
From: Tony Rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:26:59 -0600
On 11/04/97 11:09:57 Shayd wrote:
>
>On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Brett Borger wrote:
>
>
>Except when it's on Remote Service, of course. Blinking, turning around,
>doors, etcetera...and when your elemental goes out of LOS of the mage, you
>don't neccessarily lose all services, he just goes back to his home plane
>and must be called again.
>
>Unconsciousness or death is the only situation where an elemental will go
>uncontrolled per the rules. LOS merely defines the situation required to
>give the order, rather than to actually continue the service (note also
>that you can, indeed, SLEEP while you have elementals "on call" in their
>home plane without losing their services.) So Mr. Mulvehill is slightly
>off in his answer, IMOHO.

Seconded.

>
>> >> >4)CAn you sustain a spell if the target move out of LOS?
>> >> Here is another one of those questiosn I just don't understand how
>> >> it comes up. If there is no target what is the caster sustaining a
>> >> spell for?
>> >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
>> >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
>> >still work?)
>> The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!
>
>This, again, is a problem with the standard situation present in dozens of
>novels, etcetera. It's not an easy one.
>

I make it dependant on type of spell cast, environmental factors, background, activities,
etc.

>> >How do Otaku download files? (Headware memory, 2nd datajack to
>> >offline storage, or just "in their mind, same place Channels are"?)
>>
>> Good one...we are in the process of deconstructing the otaku to figure out
>> such basic questions as that one. So I really don't have an answer for that
>> one yet.
>>
>
>IMOHO, they should just ask Paul Hume :)
>
>
Yeah, Paul made the magic work for SR, and the decking, too for that matter. Miss him and
Tom
around here.

Argent

Rabiola@**.netcom.com
Argent - Elven Fixer Extrodinaire
It was hot, the night we burned Chrome...
Message no. 12
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:43:40 +0100
Chris Maxfield said on 2:24/ 5 Nov 97...

> While we're on the subject: For you people who allow a target to wander
> out-of-view of the sustaining magician - how far do you allow the targets
> to wander before the spell fails?

Since LOS need not be maintained if the GM allows this, I wouldn't put a
limit on it.

BTW, I'm very much in favour of allowing spells to be sustained out of
LOS. It adds an extra trick to the magician's bag, not to mention it makes
spells like Invisibility suddenly a lot less useful.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Self-inflicted doom.
-> 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. 13
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:41:25 -0500
At 01:48 PM 11/4/97 GMT, you wrote:

>> This has been contradicted
>> so many times by having elementals/spirits doing guard duty,
>Ah, see the rules for permanently binding an elemental in GR2, this
>costs karma equal to its force rating but separarte s the elemental
>and its counjourer, all the 'guard elementals' found in various
>adventures are legal using this rule though its so well hidden in GR2
>folks are easily excused for not knowing about it.
Okay, I'll bite, where exactly is it hidden?


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 14
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:09:17 +0000
And verily, did Chris Maxfield hastily scribble thusly...
|While we're on the subject: For you people who allow a target to wander
|out-of-view of the sustaining magician - how far do you allow the targets
|to wander before the spell fails?

In my case, you could have the spell cast in London, and it'd still work
when you pulled into San Fransisco...

I don't see the problem.
(I see it as an umbilical cord that streches as far as it needs to...)

After all, the casting mage DOES have the penalties for maintaining the
spell, and is likely to drop it at the first sign of trouble at his end...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 15
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:58:36 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-04 07:44:51 EST, bxb121@***.EDU writes:

> As if the man heard us speaking on the ether, I just received a reply
> to a reply from FASAMike. Several interesting points he brings up,
> so I thought I would Forward it to all of you to disect....

And I am just going to say this now. I read this before I posted, and I can
merely say that the man above (in this case hellishly below) is not being
very consistent with previous SR materials.

> By far the most disturbing thing is the "sustained spells don't work
> out of LOS". Now, as we already know (FAB) these answers aren't
> truly "official", but they carry a bit of weight in my mind. Steven
> Kenson, if you're reading, I'd love to hear your comments on the
> magic answers, and you'll doubtless see a huge response to some of
> these answers, showing what areas need to be clearly stated in SR3.
>
> Open fire guys:

Gun Ports??? I am going for the THOR and Planetary Defensive Measures ;)

> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
> From: FASAMike@***.com
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:36:00 -0500 (EST)
> To: bxb121@***.edu
> Subject: Re: FASAMike, work your tushy off!
> In a message dated 7/6/97 06:32:15 PM, you (Brett) wrote:
>
> (Sorry for the delay...I just can't seem to get caught up on the e-mail)
>
> >> >1)What happens when an Elemental goes out of LOS of the mage?
> >>
> >> It is no longer contolled and it takes off to it's astral home (even
> >> if it had services left). Never let a Elemental get out of sight.
> >> This is one of those questions that I don't actually understand at
> >> all. How would this come about?

I have another one entirely...in the BBB and the Grimoire II it mentions
"remote services", IIRC. Talk about "Out of Sight, Out of Mind".

> >Examples that have come up are:
> >Blinking.
> >Turning around.
> >Getting knocked unconscious.
> >Having a door in between you closed.
> >
> >See the point? What really defines LOS here...the ability to see, or
> >actually seeing.
>
> Actually in most of these example I don't see the point, but that's not
the
> issue. I have no idea in the world how blinking can even come up in the
game,
> but the LOS is not affected by blinking or even something extreme as
rubbing
> ones eyes. You are correct on the ability to see rather than actually
seeing.

Okay, we'll follow that one.

> Therefore, turning around also does not affect the spirit.

I would certainly hope not.

> >> >4)CAn you sustain a spell if the target move out of LOS?
> >>
> >> Here is another one of those questiosn I just don't understand how
> >> it comes up. If there is no target what is the caster sustaining a
> >> spell for?

I'll tell you, you can tell him...BECAUSE THEY ARE PLAYERS!!!!! Those
people, we people, think, we imagine and we spur furth ideas. Some of them
are rational (such as the stuff Brett puts forth), other stuff is not.

> >Example: I cast invisibility on the Sammy who goes into a building.
> >Is he still invisible once he is out of LOS? (i.e, does the spell
> >still work?)
>
> The spell no longer works. Hey...an easy one!

Oh brother, this guy needs help. Brett, are you sure this was Mike? Are you
sure if it was, was he in a "once a month kind of mood?" Sustaining a spell
after it has been cast was once talked about in the main rule book, you had
to retain astral perception on the energies, which changed the action
possibilities for the perceiver of course. This would make things like
advanced Metamagic fruitless and beyond pointless.

> >> >9)Does masking a spell lock mask the spell it locks too?
> >>
> >> I don't beleive it says anywhere that you can tell what the spell is
> >> by the spell lock. If so please point that out to me.

Actually, assensing -can- give you an idea of the spell in question.
Combative/Offensive magic, healing energies, illusionary forces, etcetera...

> >Interesting Point, but I was thinking more along the lines of just
> >not being noticeable astrally. If I have a Force 3 Personal bullet
> >Barrier Locked on me, Do I only need to mask 1 point (the spell lock)
> >to not be an astral beacon, or do I need 4 points (1 for the lock and
> >3 for the spell) to hide myself? I know that spells that are locked
> >tend to be treated as Force 1 for grounding, but they still WORK as a
> >higher Force...Do I then treat a locked spell as a Force 1 for
> >everything, or just for Grounding?
>
> Force 1 for just for grounding. You would need to mask the entire force of
> the spell an lock (in this case 4).

At this point, Masking is sounding more like Shielding. Hiding the link of
the spell lock itself, is this what he/you guys were referring to?

<snipped shameless plugs for Target UCAS ;) >

> >New Questions:
> >
> >How do Otaku download files? (Headware memory, 2nd datajack to
> >offline storage, or just "in their mind, same place Channels are"?)
>
> Good one...we are in the process of deconstructing the otaku to figure out
> such basic questions as that one. So I really don't have an answer for
that
> one yet.

Well let's hope there is a bright spot for this at least.

> >Does non-vehicle hardened ARmor reduce the Damage Level 1 like
> >Vehicle armor does?
>
> Actually in Rigger 2 the power reduction comes from the fact that you are
> firing at a vehilce. The armor penalty is different. You can see that on
p.
> 53 of R2. Armor only affectt eh Power Rating of the weapon not the level.

So does this mean that firing at a Vehicle with heavy armor incurs two power
reductions????

> >If you take a FAB 10-ton weight and...just kidding. :)
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Oh look, humor with a purpose... (ewg)

> -=SwiftOne=-
> Brett Borger
> SwiftOne@***.edu
> AAP Techie

Sorry folks, but those replies seemed like things from someone who was very
tired and didn't go into the game to me. I know, I'm hard core player/gm...

-K
Message no. 16
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:31:44 GMT
losthalo writes

> >Ah, see the rules for permanently binding an elemental in GR2, this
> >costs karma equal to its force rating but separarte s the elemental
> >and its counjourer, all the 'guard elementals' found in various
> >adventures are legal using this rule though its so well hidden in GR2
> >folks are easily excused for not knowing about it.

> Okay, I'll bite, where exactly is it hidden?
>
Amongst the stuff on spirits in GR2, i cannot remember the page
number but something like 2/3rds the way through. You simply are
going to have to look for it, no GR2 within reach.

Mark
Message no. 17
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:42:12 GMT
Jonathan Hurley writes
>
> Except that a Module (Dark Angel, AFAIK) has some bad guys who have spells
> sustained on them by mages who are no longer in LOS.
but thats not the SR2 rules :), fine, actually thats one of the
(relatively few) adventures i don't own.

> Me, I'd rather have
> sustaining require LOS (or some of the funkier things you can do with
> ritual sorcery) simply because it makes the magic system more symmetrical.
>
If you like.
My thought is that 'at the moment the actual RULES don't say but
inference says you can do it', could SR3 simply say 'yes you can' or
'no you cannot' either would be quite plausible i suspect under the
SR magic system. Better still could someone find out off Paul Hume?
what the answer should be (at least in his opinion) and why.

Mark
Message no. 18
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:53:24 -0500
At 11:31 AM 11/5/97 GMT, you wrote:
>Amongst the stuff on spirits in GR2, i cannot remember the page
>number but something like 2/3rds the way through. You simply are
>going to have to look for it, no GR2 within reach.
Well, I asked because I'd looked, and didn't see it. I just looked
throught he section on SPirits again and still haven't found it. Anyone
else noticed it? Got a page number?


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 19
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: FASAMike vs Steve Kenson
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:07:15 +1100
At 10:53 5/11/97 -0500, losthalo wrote:
>At 11:31 AM 11/5/97 GMT, you wrote:
>>Amongst the stuff on spirits in GR2, i cannot remember the page
>>number but something like 2/3rds the way through. You simply are
>>going to have to look for it, no GR2 within reach.
>Well, I asked because I'd looked, and didn't see it. I just looked
>throught he section on SPirits again and still haven't found it. Anyone
>else noticed it? Got a page number?

Its in the chapter on Places. Page 91 in the section on Astral Security,
last paragraph on the page:
"...If the master pays Karma equal to the spirit's Force Rating, the
elemental is bound to watch the site forever, or until banished or killed
in astral combat. Once the magician has paid Karma to set the elemental on
astral guard duty, the elemental no longer counts as bound to its
summoner..."

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart: "You
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> know, just once I'd like to meet an alien
Canberra, Australia menace that wasn't immune to bullets."

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about FASAMike vs Steve Kenson, 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!