Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:12:03 +0100
Spike said on 12:05/30 Jul 97...

> Actually, I think the reason Thermographic works is because it's not looking
> for reflected light (which the invisibility spell bends) but emitted light,
> as in body heat.....

However, that is speculation (as, admittedly, is my reasoning for why UV
vision wouldn't be affected by invisibility spells) since SR doesn't
mention the actual "real"-world mechanics behind the spell. Does it bend
light, as is suggested in many places, or does it make people take no
notice of the target?

Both have their pros and cons.

Bends Light Theory (BLT)
Pro: provides a good reason for why others are able to see "through" the
spell's subject from all angles. For the physical version of the spell, it
also explains why cameras don't register the subject.
Con: the subject wouldn't be able to see, since light is bent around
him/her/it and so will not reach his/her/its eyes or other viewing
devices. Also it doesn't explain why IR light (body heat) isn't bent
around the target, except by using the explanation that only reflected
light is affected, not light given off by the subject.

Take No Notice Theory (TNNT)
Pro: this allows the subject to see while under influence from the spell.
Con: the Disregard spell (in Awakenings) specifically states this is how
that spell works; it makes little sense if Invisibility does the same
thing. It also doesn't explain why thermographic vision isn't affected,
nor why cameras don't spot the subject of physical invisibility spells.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And you can try and you just might...
-> 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. 2
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:22:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-31 06:44:15 EDT, you write:

> However, that is speculation (as, admittedly, is my reasoning for why UV
> vision wouldn't be affected by invisibility spells) since SR doesn't
> mention the actual "real"-world mechanics behind the spell. Does it bend
> light, as is suggested in many places, or does it make people take no
> notice of the target?

My take on it is simple. The mana version of the spell is specifically
designed to affect life-forms, and electronic imaging devices, ie cameras and
the like, "filter" out the effects. Think of it as a clouding of the mind, a
la The Shadow. The physical version, however, would bend light, as it alters
the physics of the setting to cloak the target. To my mind, Disregard simply
makes you so "generic" looking, anyone else who sees you pays no attention to
you either because your harmless or you belong there.

Wolfstar
Message no. 3
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 02:32:32 +0000
> Spike said on 12:05/30 Jul 97...
>
> > Actually, I think the reason Thermographic works is because it's not looking
> > for reflected light (which the invisibility spell bends) but emitted light,
> > as in body heat.....
>
> However, that is speculation (as, admittedly, is my reasoning for why UV
> vision wouldn't be affected by invisibility spells) since SR doesn't
> mention the actual "real"-world mechanics behind the spell. Does it bend
> light, as is suggested in many places, or does it make people take no
> notice of the target?
>
> Both have their pros and cons.
>
> Bends Light Theory (BLT)
> Pro: provides a good reason for why others are able to see "through" the
> spell's subject from all angles. For the physical version of the spell, it
> also explains why cameras don't register the subject.
> Con: the subject wouldn't be able to see, since light is bent around
> him/her/it and so will not reach his/her/its eyes or other viewing
> devices. Also it doesn't explain why IR light (body heat) isn't bent
> around the target, except by using the explanation that only reflected
> light is affected, not light given off by the subject.
>
> Take No Notice Theory (TNNT)
> Pro: this allows the subject to see while under influence from the spell.
> Con: the Disregard spell (in Awakenings) specifically states this is how
> that spell works; it makes little sense if Invisibility does the same
> thing. It also doesn't explain why thermographic vision isn't affected,
> nor why cameras don't spot the subject of physical invisibility spells.
>

Transparent Theory (TT)
Pro: The character can see while under influence from the spell, and
also explains why IR can see the character, since he is only
transparent to normal light. (Spell description).
Con: How is (s)he seen by the perception test? Neither does it
explain well why (s)he is visible to cameras but not people.

Actually, the # of successes would regulate how well the transparency
works.. a few means (s)he's somewhat opaque (But blends in with the
background), while a lot menas (s)he's well nigh totally invisible.
(Giving the TN's to spot the character.. if the char's nearly totally
invisible (say 6 successes) the character is *VERY* hard to spot...
which seems reasonable to me.).

(Actually, since it's a mana spell, it only works in regard to
people. Selective transparency is a bit hard to swallow unless you
consider that magic isn't science, it's.. magic. It works under
strict laws but those laws aren't those of physical science. (You can
tell I prefer Hermetic mages, right? :)
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 4
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:44:48 -0500
> > > Actually, I think the reason Thermographic works is because it's not
looking
> > > for reflected light (which the invisibility spell bends) but emitted light,
> > > as in body heat.....
To your eye or a receiver, there is no difference between 'emitted' and
'reflected' light. It's light.

losthalo
Message no. 5
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:13:10 +0100
|> Take No Notice Theory (TNNT)
|> Pro: this allows the subject to see while under influence from the spell.
|> Con: the Disregard spell (in Awakenings) specifically states this is how
|> that spell works; it makes little sense if Invisibility does the same
|> thing. It also doesn't explain why thermographic vision isn't affected,
|> nor why cameras don't spot the subject of physical invisibility spells.
|>
|
|Transparent Theory (TT)
|Pro: The character can see while under influence from the spell, and
|also explains why IR can see the character, since he is only
|transparent to normal light. (Spell description).
|Con: How is (s)he seen by the perception test? Neither does it
|explain well why (s)he is visible to cameras but not people.


You keep forgetting there are TWO invis spells.
Mana AND Physical.

The Mana one is the "Take no notice, I'm not here" spell.
(At least, to the unaided eye. Video sees through this)

The Physical one is the "Bends light/Transparency" spell....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 6
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:19:43 +0100
|
|> > > Actually, I think the reason Thermographic works is because it's not
looking
|> > > for reflected light (which the invisibility spell bends) but emitted
light,
|> > > as in body heat.....
|To your eye or a receiver, there is no difference between 'emitted' and
|'reflected' light. It's light.

To YOUR eye, maybe. But to the invisible person it's different.

Think about it. The spell bends light around the character, so none can
reflect off him and he appears invisible. Like the cloaking device in
startek or the predator.

But the invisible character is still EMITTING thermal radiation.
The spell can NOT safely prevent that from getting out.
If it bent the IR back on itself and prevented it from leaving the aura of
the character, he'd boil alive in less than a minute.....

Therefore, emmitted heat gets out, but reflected light gets bent.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 7
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 06:52:51 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-01 00:31:57 EDT, you write:

> > > Actually, I think the reason Thermographic works is because it's not
looking
> > > for reflected light (which the invisibility spell bends) but emitted
light,
> > > as in body heat.....
> To your eye or a receiver, there is no difference between 'emitted' and
> 'reflected' light. It's light.

Doesn't matter. Light coming from the center of the "fold" wouldn't be bent,
only light approaching. Of course, this would also mean that no light
whatsoever could reach the mage and he would be completely blind for the
duration of the spell.... <EGMG>

Wolfstar
Message no. 8
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:16:24 +0000
> |Transparent Theory (TT)
> |Pro: The character can see while under influence from the spell, and
> |also explains why IR can see the character, since he is only
> |transparent to normal light. (Spell description).
> |Con: How is (s)he seen by the perception test? Neither does it
> |explain well why (s)he is visible to cameras but not people.
>
>
> You keep forgetting there are TWO invis spells.
> Mana AND Physical.

I didn't forget. I never do. And I certainly don't KEEP forgetting
because I haven't posted on this before, so even if I did you
couldn't know about it. So there.. :)

> The Mana one is the "Take no notice, I'm not here" spell.
> (At least, to the unaided eye. Video sees through this)
>
> The Physical one is the "Bends light/Transparency" spell....

Both is transparent; the mana one affect what
people watching the invis dude sees, the physical one affects people
and machines. If you see other mana/physical spells, there is seldom
a difference in how they work, just what they affect. (Mana
ball/Power ball, for instance, levitate person/item, and so on. Your
mana invisibility spell is called Diregard in awakenings, btw.





> --
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> |u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
|
> |Andrew Halliwell | |
> |Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
> |Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."
|
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |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! :( |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 9
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:25:40 -0700
---Fade wrote:

<snip>

> ball/Power ball, for instance, levitate person/item, and so on. Your
> mana invisibility spell is called Diregard in awakenings, btw.

No, there is a Mana form of the Invisibility spell.

If you look at the standard Invisibility spell, it is Mana based. The
Improved Invisibility spell is the Physical version (which is why it
affects machines.)

I don't have the BBB here, so I can give you page numbers from it.
However, the collected spell list in the Grimmy shows the Mana and
Physical versions of Inivisibility on page 133.

===
@>--,--'--- Loki

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

"You're being held up by a stim patch, Loki's almost a pile of ashes
thanks to that fire elemental, and we've got the Baron running around
screaming assassins...assassins...oh eek, assassins!"
--> Caric to Ook during the Harlequin Campaign

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Message no. 10
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 01:10:03 +0000
Loki wrote:
> ---Fade wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > ball/Power ball, for instance, levitate person/item, and so on. Your
> > mana invisibility spell is called Diregard in awakenings, btw.
>
> No, there is a Mana form of the Invisibility spell.

I didn't say otherwise, did I? You snip too much.

Someone said the mana invisibility spell made peopel disregard you; I
said that was what Disregard (the spell) did, and that mana
invisibility made you translucent to people but not machines, and
physical invisibility made you translucent to both.

> If you look at the standard Invisibility spell, it is Mana based. The
> Improved Invisibility spell is the Physical version (which is why it
> affects machines.)
I know. :)

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility spells revisited (was Re: [SR3] Area Spells), 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!