Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 05:33:06 +0200
Just a short one.
Invisibility for example does affect in the improved version technological
sensors (SR 3rd., page 195, 2nd. column, INVISIBILITY). So, what if you
have an automatic system that is set to alert an when an intruder crosses
the border of the corporate high sec. Labs?

Does it sound the alert because automated Systems do not have a mind to
affect (SR 3rd. page 195, Invis. states that the spell affects the mind)?

Or does it try to resist the Spell?

If so, what Int. Rating to take?

The Last Users Rating?

The last Programmer of the System?

A specific Int. Rating that every cunning Sec. Dev. should have invented by
now?

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to achieve.
Message no. 2
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:56:17 -0500
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 05:33:06 +0200 Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
writes:
>Just a short one.
>Invisibility for example does affect in the improved version
technological
>sensors (SR 3rd., page 195, 2nd. column, INVISIBILITY). So, what if you
>have an automatic system that is set to alert an when an intruder
crosses
>the border of the corporate high sec. Labs?
>
>Does it sound the alert because automated Systems do not have a mind to
>affect (SR 3rd. page 195, Invis. states that the spell affects the
mind)?
>
>Or does it try to resist the Spell?
>
>If so, what Int. Rating to take?
>
>The Last Users Rating?
>
>The last Programmer of the System?
>
>A specific Int. Rating that every cunning Sec. Dev. should have invented
by
>now?

Okay. For standard Invisibility, the system is unaffected and anyone
viewing through the system is unaffected. For Improved Invisibility, use
whatever passes for Intelligence in the system. This could be the rating
of an expert system or the Intelligence of the viewer.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." --(Can
anyone place the source?)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:23:23 +0200
According to Steadfast, at 5:33 on 26 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> Invisibility for example does affect in the improved version technological
> sensors (SR 3rd., page 195, 2nd. column, INVISIBILITY). So, what if you
> have an automatic system that is set to alert an when an intruder crosses
> the border of the corporate high sec. Labs?
>
> Does it sound the alert because automated Systems do not have a mind to
> affect (SR 3rd. page 195, Invis. states that the spell affects the mind)?

If it's a normal Invisibility spell, the device isn't affected by the
spell. With Improved Invisibility, though, it will be affected just like
characters will be.

> Or does it try to resist the Spell?

See above. It resists Improved Invisibility, but not normal Invisibility.

> If so, what Int. Rating to take?

The rating of the sensors, or whatever other rating the device uses to
detect things with.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Nobody's going to murder anyone here even if it means I have to
kill someone!" --Kane, detective/rigger
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 09:00:30 -0400
At 05:33 AM 9-26-98 +0200, you wrote:
>Just a short one.
>Invisibility for example does affect in the improved version technological
>sensors (SR 3rd., page 195, 2nd. column, INVISIBILITY). So, what if you
>have an automatic system that is set to alert an when an intruder crosses
>the border of the corporate high sec. Labs?

<snip questions about resisting the spell>

>--->Steadfast

SR3, p. 183, Spell Resistance Test, last sentence, first paragraph:
"Non-living, non-magical targets may not make a resistance test."

In other words, an automatic system that's been fooled by an Invisibility
spell can't see you at all. It has NO CHANCE.

OTOH, you have to roll against a very high TN determined by the Object
Resistance Table (p.182) to affect it in the first place. For an automatic
security system, the TN would be 10+. But score even one success and you
are totally invisible to it.

Starjammer | "Would it help if we sacrificed a
goat?"
starjammer@**********.com | -- Street sam "Crusher" Carlson
to mage
Marietta, GA | Straight Blue, on a really bad day
Message no. 5
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:32:08 EDT
In a message dated 9/25/98 8:37:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
laughingman@*******.DE writes:

> Invisibility for example does affect in the improved version technological
> sensors (SR 3rd., page 195, 2nd. column, INVISIBILITY). So, what if you
> have an automatic system that is set to alert an when an intruder crosses
> the border of the corporate high sec. Labs?
A lot of other posts have already gone into some of the mechanics, but
wouldn't it depend more on what sensor is trying to see the character?
Would a laser tripwire be activated? (Physical invisibility means light
travels through, nay?)
A sonic beam should be set off, and obviously any physical alarm (tripwire,
floorplate) would be.
I never remember reading about a camera tied to an expert system that
detects such anomalies as a person walking where he shouldn't be. Most of the
pass-style cameras are on doors. If the person is invisisble, he can't open
the door.
Just a few thoughts.
Message no. 6
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:09:34 +1000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]On
> Behalf Of Gurth
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 1998 9:23 PM
>
>
> > Or does it try to resist the Spell?
>
> See above. It resists Improved Invisibility, but not normal
> Invisibility.
>
> > If so, what Int. Rating to take?
>
> The rating of the sensors, or whatever other rating the
> device uses to
> detect things with.

Would that really be the case? In 3rd Ed, vehicles and the like don't
resist combat spells to stage the damage down. Would invis be any
different?

NightRain.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, |
| and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://nightrain.home.ml.org

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
ICQ : 2587947
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:58:42 +0200
According to NightRain, at 21:09 on 27 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> > The rating of the sensors, or whatever other rating the
> > device uses to detect things with.
>
> Would that really be the case? In 3rd Ed, vehicles and the like don't
> resist combat spells to stage the damage down. Would invis be any
> different?

Yeah, my mistake. After playing SRII for half a decade, that's what you
get :)

(Although I find it a bit of a weird change -- it may reflect the
difference between life-dependent magic and non-magical technology and all
that, but it still doesn't quite feel right to me that even resisted
spells should more or less automatically succeed against technology. Not
counting the much higher TN for casting the spell, of course.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Nobody's going to murder anyone here even if it means I have to
kill someone!" --Kane, detective/rigger
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 06:10:45 -0500
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:58:42 +0200 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>According to NightRain, at 21:09 on 27 Sep 98, the word on the street
>was...
>> > The rating of the sensors, or whatever other rating the
>> > device uses to detect things with.

>> Would that really be the case? In 3rd Ed, vehicles and the like don't
>> resist combat spells to stage the damage down. Would invis be any
>> different?

>Yeah, my mistake. After playing SRII for half a decade, that's what you
>get :)
<SNIP>

I don't know ... I see the "resistance" using Intelligence as a test that
works similarly to resistance but is not a resistance. I see it as more
of a spotting of the flaws in the illusion (Hazy areas for Invisibility,
inconsistencies for Mask, etc) and as such any form of intelligence or
pseudo-intelligence would work for "resisting" a physical illusion.

(This is my interpretation of the book's -intention-, the book probably
implies differently but this is the only thing that makes sense.)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
--T-Bone(?)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 9
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:53:16 -0400
On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, NightRain wrote:

->> -----Original Message-----
->> From: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]On
->> Behalf Of Gurth
->> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 1998 9:23 PM
->>
->>
->> > Or does it try to resist the Spell?
->>
->> See above. It resists Improved Invisibility, but not normal
->> Invisibility.
->>
->> > If so, what Int. Rating to take?
->>
->> The rating of the sensors, or whatever other rating the
->> device uses to
->> detect things with.
->
->Would that really be the case? In 3rd Ed, vehicles and the like don't
->resist combat spells to stage the damage down. Would invis be any
->different?

They resist damage from weapons (pg. 149). Elemental Manipulation
spells are resisted same as weapons (pg. 150). Only Combat spells have
the distinction of not being resisted by non-living objects.
Also, if you'll notice on pg. 136 there is a target number
modifier for Sensors detecting objects "Concealed by Spell". If it wasn't
possible, there wouldn't need to be a modifier, so it must be possible.
Therefore devices with sensors MIGHT be able to detect an invisible object
if they roll enough successes.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Illusions Spells casted on Automatic Sstems, 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!