Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Sensors And Detection
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 17:33:01 -0600
> Let's see ... investing .5 million nuyen in security on a 5
>million nuyen airframe seems about right in Shadowrun's universe ...
>everybody has shadowrunners, so your security is going to need every edge
>it can get. Shadow assets aren't necessarily ... reliable, either.
> Real life example. A car dealership I know of consistently lost
>2 - 3 cars a month on their lots. Then they installed fairly expensive
>ignition interlocks and they haven't lost another truck since.
>

Let me clarify the original airframe that was s Doc Wagon Ospery 2. The
price for such is not listed in TGTRL, but the RBB has tilt rotor FD-2050
for only 625k yen. I believe that your 5 million yen price tag that you
used was not for a Osprey 2 but something else. As to your example it is
good one but I am sure that the dealership investigated all forms of
security measures, then decided on one based upon cost and effectiveness.

> Yes! And the basic limitation on radar sensitivity (assuming
>enough wattage, etc) is ...
> Signal processing ... and by computer standards, 2055 is advanced
>indeed. In the main book, they allude to the 7th generation cyberdeck
>having "as much processing power as a warehouse full of old-style
>mainframes". So those radars (and please, don't limit yourself to that
>band of EM) are going to be quite a bit better, thank you. Add in
>doppler shift processing and synthetic apertures and resolution is going
>to be quite a bit better.

Ok I never have limited myself to that range of EM band. But in Shadowrun
we have a different term Sensor which FASA implemented as catch all for
all of the types of technology.

> How many surveillance birds are up today? How about in 2055,
>when the average bird is the size of a grapefruit and can be launched by
>mass driver by the dozens? How are you going to track what you can't see
>(without someone's nice astronomical observatory, say Paolo's)?

Your above statement is entirely correct for passive sats only. Locating
a actively emmiting sat is by todays techniques child's play, but 2054
technology simple. One does not need a observatory to locate sats active
and passive. Using your signal proccessing technology and phased array
sensors even a golf ball sized sat could be detected in 2054. The sensors]
would be even smaller that todays stop sign sized ones. People in 2054
that would have access to such tech gear would range from Joe your next
door neighbor, anti corp groups, and ELINT "hackers".

> Actually, resolution is a function of frequency and antennae
>area, and Rayleigh's criterion provides the angular resolution limit.
>The return signal amplitude must be greater than the background noise
>amplitude, but a band-reject filter can drop down the noise intensity in
>exchange for greater complexity. Since noise is a wide-band phenomena
>one can preferentially filter it out if one is willing to build a complex
>enough transfer function generator, which will in turn require lots of
>Fast-Fourier-Transform processing overhead, for which you need a novahot
>computer. But they have those in 2055, so no problem. So again, your
>comments are dated, in terms of engineering realities in the 80's (which
>is when those naval systems were designed and engineered), thank you very
>much.

But the above are work arounds to the wavelength that I posted. By the way
I have not limited my discussion to 80's Naval tech. I am currently
empoloyed a BioMedical Electronics Tech 2. Which means that I service
and maintain medical electronics for MRI's to toasters. I have seen next
generation signal processing on MRI's that owe everthing to 80's Naval
sonar signal processing tech. I do try and keep current in Naval/Mil tech
and due to my work I see the tech implemented in non military roles.

> Unfortunately, passive systems have the very large requirement of
>needing something to listen to. ELINT is all very well and good, but
>when your opponent has disciplined EMCON you are really playing a game of
>cat and mouse, waiting for someone to give themselves away first. Unlike
>acoustic conditions wherein the opponent must generate noise, electronic
>systems can be easily shielded by a Faraday cage, which would be trivial
>to construct with a conductive plastic coating. (And conducting plastic
>has been made by doping with lithium a few years ago).

Today a Faraday Cage in not 100% against such techniques that are outlined
in TEMPEST, by 2054 it will be even harder. Any osillating circuit can be
detected at long ranges if one wants to build the specialized detector to
do so. I todays "spook" world the things decribed in popular Clancy novels
are not that far off. The ECM/ECCM struggle will always continue to be a
see sawing battle.

> A jammer isn't going to do much good against a coded laser
>squirt, sorry.
>

Yes you can "jam" a laser pulsed signal, just think about. Remember the jammer
in Shadowrun are delibrately generic. If it is communications jammer, it will
jam all communications unless the communicator has ECCM of a high enough rating.

>> of that tron warez. Improved Invisiblity effects technological sensing
devices.
>
> Not precisely, as ultrasound does seem to be an exception.
>

Not according to the describtion works against technological sensing devices.
I do think that ultrasound does use technology sensing devices. But in game
terms despite what the describtions of the spells state the game effects
are that it raises the TN required for you to perceive the object/person. If
you have enough dice to roll you can see "percieve" the object/person. If you
percieve it you can deal with it ie shoot track etc. By the way you could
also have magic/spirits affect vehicles thus causing the signture rating
to go up. I have, in game terms, raised a aircrafts Sig Rate into the 20's.
making it extermley hard to have anything track it. But this was an extreme
example most of the time the SIg Rate was in the mid teens.

>> The black box has to get power from somewhere. By the by ask an EW if his
blip
>
> Yes, from an internal (and very efficient) battery. Otherwise,
>it would be trivial to sabotage, as you have noted.
>

Good point. But I could use a spell to take out the battery on that black
box, or I could take out the electronics in the black box. That is one of
the strong points of Shadowrun creative use of magic can provided an
excellant counter to technology and its devices.

> *Shrug* You had access to technical specs. Could you defeat the
>security interlocks on a boomer? I sincerely doubt it ...
>

Again money to the right people "access the tech specs" could make anything
possible. I have a better chance than you could imagine in defeating the
interlocks on a boomer, if I had a reason to try. I have a excellant use of
nonlinear thinking techniques. That means I do not to think along accepted
methods. While in the Navy I participated and planned in the simulated capture
of a destroyer to test out security. Results destruction of one destroyer the
severe damage to two others and did not get captured. But in shadowrun the use
of boomers is is moot point. Magic can really ruin the boomers day.

>> Sinbad Sam
>
>=========================================================================
>Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
>acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
>http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
>=========================================================================
>
>
Message no. 2
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:59:21 -0800
On Sun, 26 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> used was not for a Osprey 2 but something else. As to your example it is
> good one but I am sure that the dealership investigated all forms of
> security measures, then decided on one based upon cost and effectiveness.

The point of the example is that it is cost-effective to install
security devices on a fleet of vehicles rather than accepting the losses
or hiring outsiders to bring them back.

> Your above statement is entirely correct for passive sats only. Locating
> a actively emmiting sat is by todays techniques child's play, but 2054
> technology simple. One does not need a observatory to locate sats active

Ah, but the limitation is cost. Since you have invoked FASA's
rules on sensor technology, skip on over to the Rigger Black Book and
check out the price for military grade sensors. Then add ECCM to counter
all the spoofing techniques on the birds. Now how many people can afford
this gear? (Answer: only those with 5 million + to spend.) To a corp
that kind of money is child's play, but not to your average downtrodden,
disenfranchised shadowrunner.
Next, what is the availability and street cost of this gear?

> Today a Faraday Cage in not 100% against such techniques that are outlined
> in TEMPEST, by 2054 it will be even harder. Any osillating circuit can be
> detected at long ranges if one wants to build the specialized detector to
> do so. I todays "spook" world the things decribed in popular Clancy novels
> are not that far off. The ECM/ECCM struggle will always continue to be a
> see sawing battle.

And, as noted in the Denver sourcebook, where they talk about the
escalating cost spiral of the electronics warfare suite in a panzer, how
many shadowrunners can afford "specialized detectors" and all the fancy
hardware?
Basically, the people that have this stuff will be the corps and some
government agencies. And they're not gonna share.

> Yes you can "jam" a laser pulsed signal, just think about. Remember the
jammer
> in Shadowrun are delibrately generic. If it is communications jammer, it will
> jam all communications unless the communicator has ECCM of a high enough rating.

With your technical background, please inform me how you can jam
a laser pulse short of blocking the emitter? Begging off to some
sort of "generic" jammer that FASA writes in their books is cheating a
bit, don't you think?
In real life, you can only block a laser transmission in two ways:
1) block the emitter physically so the laser beam cannot get "out" and
2) intersperse some sort of physical barrier in the beam path.
There aren't any other ways to do so that I know of, and certainly
an electronic jammer isn't going to do it. If you can think of another
way I'd love to hear it.

> Not according to the describtion works against technological sensing devices.
> I do think that ultrasound does use technology sensing devices. But in game

FASA states that ultrasound is good against magic.

> percieve it you can deal with it ie shoot track etc. By the way you could
> also have magic/spirits affect vehicles thus causing the signture rating
> to go up. I have, in game terms, raised a aircrafts Sig Rate into the 20's.
> making it extermley hard to have anything track it. But this was an extreme
> example most of the time the SIg Rate was in the mid teens.

Our resident rigger did this in our game, until she discovered
those darn Injun's just assensed the spell/spirit surrounding her
vehicle, and the nice astral energies of same made her Banshee stand out
like a flare in the night ....
This of course led to the infamous "bug-on-a-windshield" story
when her Banshee ran into a fairly strong physical barrier ....

> Good point. But I could use a spell to take out the battery on that black

I don't think you can cast a spell on something you can't see.
The point of the black box is you can't very well get at it too easily,
and once you've got it you can't open it very well, and if you do have it
you've also disabled something in your aircraft (those darn interlocks
again). So if you could see the internals of the black box well enough
to cast a spell at it, you wouldn't need to do so, you could just snip
some wires. That's the easy part. The hard part is getting to the black
box in the first place.

> Again money to the right people "access the tech specs" could make anything
> possible. I have a better chance than you could imagine in defeating the
> interlocks on a boomer, if I had a reason to try. I have a excellant use of
> nonlinear thinking techniques. That means I do not to think along accepted

*Shrug*. Not that I want you to attempt to prove this, but I'm
still skeptical, "non-linear" thinking aside. This is more like a
"magic"
debate, in that we can't really prove this one to each others'
satisfaction, so let's agree to disagree, neh?

> >> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 3
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 17:13:38 -0600
> The point of the example is that it is cost-effective to install
>security devices on a fleet of vehicles rather than accepting the losses
>or hiring outsiders to bring them back.

But the dealer only invested in the security interlocks only after
they suffered losses correct? If that is correct then the dealership
displayed corporate inertia. "An object at rest ...."

> Ah, but the limitation is cost. Since you have invoked FASA's
>rules on sensor technology, skip on over to the Rigger Black Book and
>check out the price for military grade sensors. Then add ECCM to counter
>all the spoofing techniques on the birds. Now how many people can afford
>this gear? (Answer: only those with 5 million + to spend.) To a corp
>that kind of money is child's play, but not to your average downtrodden,
>disenfranchised shadowrunner.
> Next, what is the availability and street cost of this gear?

In the FASA Shadowrun World all I need Security level 1 ECM/ECCM sensors
then I combine it with a skill in Electronic Warfare of 7, a technical task
pool of 3 extra dice, 7 dice from my control pool, then some added karma
and the sat is detected/located. The needed gear only cost 55,000 new yen,
well within the reach of most groups including riggers. I also agree that
most corps could afford the best ECM/ECCM gear and the techs to push it
to the limit. Which could mean that the corps could be conducting a shadow
war of stats above the planet. Taking out each other's sats and possilble
getting another corp to take the blame. It would also leave open for some
corps to leak the gear to noncorps types to get them to act as their pawns
so to speak.
As to the availablity and street cost well I have my own listing but I
also believe that in 2054 that table top microlathe machine shops would
be available, meaning that if you had a copy of the final design program
CAM/CAD then the table top microlathe could machine it. But aside from
that the VR book allowes deckers to design and build decks from scratch
so to speak, then an argrument could be made for other types to build the
gear that they need, provided that they had the skills/contacts/facilities
to do so. That would mean that they could build tech gear at a fraction of
the costs in the books. But it would take time and facilities. we also
use some advanced building/construction rules for same. The system that
we use has different levels of tools/shops/facilites at varying costs.

> And, as noted in the Denver sourcebook, where they talk about the
>escalating cost spiral of the electronics warfare suite in a panzer, how
>many shadowrunners can afford "specialized detectors" and all the fancy
>hardware?
> Basically, the people that have this stuff will be the corps and some
>government agencies. And they're not gonna share.

I believe that I have covered this pretty well above this.

> With your technical background, please inform me how you can jam
>a laser pulse short of blocking the emitter? Begging off to some
>sort of "generic" jammer that FASA writes in their books is cheating a
>bit, don't you think?
> In real life, you can only block a laser transmission in two ways:
>1) block the emitter physically so the laser beam cannot get "out" and
>2) intersperse some sort of physical barrier in the beam path.
> There aren't any other ways to do so that I know of, and certainly
>an electronic jammer isn't going to do it. If you can think of another
>way I'd love to hear it.

It is reall<<<<data deleted>>>>> Damn I guess that they are
around.;-)
Technical background aside, just think about what is one of the basic
principles of Electronic Warfare. I agree it is not easy but very easily
done by todays standards just check it out with your Tech Heads, at your
site. We have the ability to "jam" a Laser transmission today by 2054 it
will be even more advanced. Just dig up texts on electronic warfare and
you will find your answers there. There are several available that are
not even classified, and are in most public libraries. So UC Davis should
have a resonable selection.

>> Not according to the describtion works against technological sensing devices.
>> I do think that ultrasound does use technology sensing devices. But in game
>
> FASA states that ultrasound is good against magic.

Hmm I think that this has been debated pretty well on this list and in the
newgroup. The latest is that a physical mask will work against tech sensing
gear Grimore page 130. Improved invisiblity afftects tech sensing devices
Shadowrun Hardback page 156. Where is the example that you base you above
statement on. I have been lurking here for over six months and I have never
seen such a statement from FASA, I also have been on Genie for over five
years and never seen such a statement. The lastest word form FASA is that
the publication date of products is to be used a abtributer. SR2 overides
Street Sam Guide with the noted exceptions in the back of SR2.

> Our resident rigger did this in our game, until she discovered
>those darn Injun's just assensed the spell/spirit surrounding her
>vehicle, and the nice astral energies of same made her Banshee stand out
>like a flare in the night ....
> This of course led to the infamous "bug-on-a-windshield" story
>when her Banshee ran into a fairly strong physical barrier ....

It depends upon how you interperet the effects of stealth/concealing
spells on the astral plane. But that has been debated at length here and
elsewhere. My group has the view that the spells/powers of concealment do
have an effect on the astral plane. But we only reached our decesion
after lengthy debate on it. By the way it sounds like there might be a
story as to how your rigger acquired a banshee.

> I don't think you can cast a spell on something you can't see.
>The point of the black box is you can't very well get at it too easily,
>and once you've got it you can't open it very well, and if you do have it
>you've also disabled something in your aircraft (those darn interlocks
>again). So if you could see the internals of the black box well enough
>to cast a spell at it, you wouldn't need to do so, you could just snip
>some wires. That's the easy part. The hard part is getting to the black
>box in the first place.

Well I can see the airframe, cast the spell Turn airframe exterior
transparent. Now that the airframe exterior is not blocking my view and then
use turn area transparent to find the black box. I can now see the black
box and I can then target it with the needed spell. I use the right
spirit to maintain the transparency spells. By the way mages can use
optic based binoculars to cast spells and the glass in such is
transparent.

> *Shrug*. Not that I want you to attempt to prove this, but I'm
>still skeptical, "non-linear" thinking aside. This is more like a
"magic"
>debate, in that we can't really prove this one to each others'
>satisfaction, so let's agree to disagree, neh?
>

A good historical example of nonlinear thinking is what the Germans did
to the Maginot line during WWII. I agree to disagree.

>> >> Sinbad Sam
>
>=========================================================================
>Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
>acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
>http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
>=========================================================================
>
>
Sinbad Sam
Message no. 4
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:23:04 -0800
On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> But the dealer only invested in the security interlocks only after
> they suffered losses correct? If that is correct then the dealership
> displayed corporate inertia. "An object at rest ...."

A corp security branch wouldn't want the headaches involved with
one of their airframes not under their control. Else they'd get fried
like the Secret Service has been of late.

> In the FASA Shadowrun World all I need Security level 1 ECM/ECCM sensors
> then I combine it with a skill in Electronic Warfare of 7, a technical task
> pool of 3 extra dice, 7 dice from my control pool, then some added karma
> and the sat is detected/located. The needed gear only cost 55,000 new yen,

The Control pool wouldn't really apply, and one cannot use Karma
on any tests except "Save your butt". (And Tom Dowd has been quoted as
saying that perhaps Karma could be used in such a way in the future, but
they don't have the rules for it now and it certainly wouldn't translate
at 1:1). With this caveats, your bootleg tech's job just got much
rougher (not that the FASA ECM/ECCM are terribly clear or realistic, so
your mileage may vary. But I certainly don't think a low-tech bootleg
set with a rating of 1 should have a snowball's chance against an
advanced system with a rating of 5 ... the dice just don't reflect this,
and these are more the realm of personal opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

> As to the availablity and street cost well I have my own listing but I
> also believe that in 2054 that table top microlathe machine shops would

I agree with the above, except that micrilathes would not be the
way to manufacture electronics. A lathe has a turning part with a
stationary cutter, more for machining metals. Stereolithography would be
more the technique of choice, but that also is not really the way to go
for chips, being mostly good for making precision molds. Perhaps X-ray
lithography might be cheaper by 2054 ....

> be available, meaning that if you had a copy of the final design program
> CAM/CAD then the table top microlathe could machine it. But aside from

Not really ... see above.

> site. We have the ability to "jam" a Laser transmission today by 2054 it
> will be even more advanced. Just dig up texts on electronic warfare and
> you will find your answers there. There are several available that are
> not even classified, and are in most public libraries. So UC Davis should
> have a resonable selection.

Haven't come across it in my quantum optics classes ... then
again absence of proof is not proof of absence, but understand I remain
skeptical.

> Hmm I think that this has been debated pretty well on this list and in the

Again, a matter of personal taste. I'd prefer the spell to
designate why it beats a particular sensing device, rather than just a
blanket statement that it does. One of the list-debates about improved
invisibility is the effective blindness of the recipient if the spell
truly "bends" light.

> It depends upon how you interperet the effects of stealth/concealing
> spells on the astral plane. But that has been debated at length here and
> elsewhere. My group has the view that the spells/powers of concealment do
> have an effect on the astral plane. But we only reached our decesion
> after lengthy debate on it. By the way it sounds like there might be a
> story as to how your rigger acquired a banshee.

Well, all spells show up in astral space, so I don't see how a
concealment spell works there. Only masking changings the "truth" of
what one assenses there, and only because the True Aura is on a metaplane.
That, too, is from the Grimoire. The only spell that conceals anything
in astral space is Astral Static, and it in and of itself, is visible ...
one just can't assense through it, 'tis all.
And yes, there is a story on how the rigger stole flight time from
a military simulator to train in Vectored Thrust (Banshee), and then
acquired the Banshee some time later. One of Tigger's greatest triumphs
....

> Well I can see the airframe, cast the spell Turn airframe exterior
> transparent. Now that the airframe exterior is not blocking my view and then
> use turn area transparent to find the black box. I can now see the black

This is still "cheating", for a number of reasons. One, the
concept of "aural wholeness". A vehicle is considered to have one aura
... you do not have the option of targetting a specific part of a vehicle
with a spell. This is discussed both in the Rigger Black Book and
Grimoire II.
Second, the example you are using above is akin to
viewing something via clairvoyance ... not valid for the purposes of
spell targetting. Also, the aura of the spell would block your astral
view of the inside.
So actually, a black box would be a rather good security
measure. And of course, not the only one.


> A good historical example of nonlinear thinking is what the Germans did
> to the Maginot line during WWII. I agree to disagree.

Oh, I understand "non-linear" thinking. Except that in a lot of
cases, what you are actually doing simply examining your preconcieved
notions and assumptions, discarding them, and reapproaching the problem
without these biases. That too, is a sort of heuristic approach ... ;-)
You just assumed that there wasn't a method of rendering that thinking in
terms of algorithms, and hence fell victim to a linear mode of
catagorization. ;-) ;-)
(No sarcasm or insult intended)

> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 5
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 21:35:26 -0600
> A corp security branch wouldn't want the headaches involved with
>one of their airframes not under their control. Else they'd get fried
>like the Secret Service has been of late.

Unless corporate management techniques change radically by 2054, corps
will suffer from "inertia". The larger the corp the greater the degree
of "inertia". Most corp security branches tend to end up being the
whipping boy when things go wrong nevermind that security told them
that it would/could happen. Most corps tend to be reactive than
proactive, and the farther removed the risk the smaller the effect
on the "inertia". The Secret Service has people that warned them
of what might happen, but due to "inertia" they were ignored until
to late. but we always hope that they will be proactive in the
future. ;-)

> The Control pool wouldn't really apply, and one cannot use Karma
>on any tests except "Save your butt". (And Tom Dowd has been quoted as
>saying that perhaps Karma could be used in such a way in the future, but
>they don't have the rules for it now and it certainly wouldn't translate
>at 1:1). With this caveats, your bootleg tech's job just got much
>rougher (not that the FASA ECM/ECCM are terribly clear or realistic, so
>your mileage may vary. But I certainly don't think a low-tech bootleg
>set with a rating of 1 should have a snowball's chance against an
>advanced system with a rating of 5 ... the dice just don't reflect this,
>and these are more the realm of personal opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

RBB page 102....dice from the Control Pool are allocated to different
"vehicle related tasks" during either the Combat or combat turn....
Now is sensor enhanced targeting, ECM/ECCM vehicle realted tests well
the consensus at my end it is. They mounted and are a part of the vehicle.

> I agree with the above, except that micrilathes would not be the
>way to manufacture electronics. A lathe has a turning part with a
>stationary cutter, more for machining metals. Stereolithography would be
>more the technique of choice, but that also is not really the way to go
>for chips, being mostly good for making precision molds. Perhaps X-ray
>lithography might be cheaper by 2054 ....
>
> Not really ... see above.

I was using that as a example of the possiblity of very small
manufacturing capablities that might exist in 2054, both in materials
and in electronics fabrication. By the way the VR book hs the deckers
using optical chips to make decks and then "Burning" them in or cooking
them. What I am leading up to is that most of the electronics could be
replaced by optical chips with right programming. An interesting
possiblity eh.

>> site. We have the ability to "jam" a Laser transmission today by 2054
it
>> will be even more advanced. Just dig up texts on electronic warfare and
>> you will find your answers there. There are several available that are
>> not even classified, and are in most public libraries. So UC Davis should
>> have a resonable selection.
>
> Haven't come across it in my quantum optics classes ... then
>again absence of proof is not proof of absence, but understand I remain
>skeptical.

Well think that you will not find that Electronic Warfare techniques and
theory not covered in quantum optics classes. Look up the texts you will
find it most imformative. You would be amazed at what EW can do today,
what it can do in 2054, well it will look like magic to us so to speak.

> Again, a matter of personal taste. I'd prefer the spell to
>designate why it beats a particular sensing device, rather than just a
>blanket statement that it does. One of the list-debates about improved
>invisibility is the effective blindness of the recipient if the spell
>truly "bends" light.

I also agree that it is matter of personel taste and the light bending
is prolonged debate.

> Well, all spells show up in astral space, so I don't see how a
>concealment spell works there. Only masking changings the "truth" of
>what one assenses there, and only because the True Aura is on a metaplane.
>That, too, is from the Grimoire. The only spell that conceals anything
>in astral space is Astral Static, and it in and of itself, is visible ...
>one just can't assense through it, 'tis all.
> And yes, there is a story on how the rigger stole flight time from
>a military simulator to train in Vectored Thrust (Banshee), and then
>acquired the Banshee some time later. One of Tigger's greatest triumphs
>....

This consensus at my end is that spirit powers of concealment due affect
astral preception SR2hard page 217 "This power refers to a being's
ability to hide within "its terrain" ... ...Concealment adds the being's
Essence Rating to the target number of any "Perception Test" the
gamemaster requires." Grimore page 87 ... "astral beings are all spirits
of some kind. ... they are native to the astral space." Thus a nature
spirit's terrain is its domain and the astral area associated with that
domain. Spotting a fast moving Banshee thru a astral apace would require
a perception test to spot and then subject to the spirits Essence Rating
adding to the test, if it was concealing.

>> Well I can see the airframe, cast the spell Turn airframe exterior
>> transparent. Now that the airframe exterior is not blocking my view and then
>> use turn area transparent to find the black box. I can now see the black
>
> This is still "cheating", for a number of reasons. One, the
>concept of "aural wholeness". A vehicle is considered to have one aura
>... you do not have the option of targetting a specific part of a vehicle
>with a spell. This is discussed both in the Rigger Black Book and
>Grimoire II.
> Second, the example you are using above is akin to
>viewing something via clairvoyance ... not valid for the purposes of
>spell targetting. Also, the aura of the spell would block your astral
>view of the inside.
> So actually, a black box would be a rather good security
>measure. And of course, not the only one.

The "aural wholeness" discussions on SR2hard page 109, Grimore and RBB
page 104 the heading of both is "Combat Spells Against Vehicles".
Operative word is "Combat", the spell I described above is a manipulation
not combat. Grimore page 111 "Combat spells pump DAMAGING energy directly
into the aura(s) of the target(s)." Grimore page 112 "Manipulation spells
can be physical or mana based and are used to TRANSFORM, TRANSMUTE,
CONTROL, or ANIMATE matter or energy." So yes with a noncombat spell
you can target a specific area of the vehicle.

As to it being akin to using clairvoyance, does that mean a mage cannot
target someone inside a vehicle thru the "transparent window". Which is
what the above spells does to the area. For the duration of the spell it
is the effect a clear/transparent window. As to you aura of the spell would
block your astral view, well then by your example I could cast increased
reflexes on my self and no mage could target me due to his astral view
being blocked, NOT. FYI you do not have to spot you astrally to target
you with a spell but you can target a spell using the astral peaking.

As to it being "Cheating" familarity with the rules and creativeness
within same is not cheating merely very good player inventiveness.

> Oh, I understand "non-linear" thinking. Except that in a lot of
>cases, what you are actually doing simply examining your preconcieved
>notions and assumptions, discarding them, and reapproaching the problem
>without these biases. That too, is a sort of heuristic approach ... ;-)
>You just assumed that there wasn't a method of rendering that thinking in
>terms of algorithms, and hence fell victim to a linear mode of
>catagorization. ;-) ;-)
> (No sarcasm or insult intended)
>
None taken but very good restatement.

>> Sinbad Sam
>
>=========================================================================
>Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
>acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
>http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
>=========================================================================
>
>
Sinbad Sam
Message no. 6
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:31:03 +1100
Sam Thomas writes:

> This consensus at my end is that spirit powers of concealment due affect
> astral preception SR2hard page 217 "This power refers to a being's
> ability to hide within "its terrain" ... ...Concealment adds the being's
> Essence Rating to the target number of any "Perception Test" the
> gamemaster requires." Grimore page 87 ... "astral beings are all spirits
> of some kind. ... they are native to the astral space." Thus a nature
> spirit's terrain is its domain and the astral area associated with that
> domain. Spotting a fast moving Banshee thru a astral apace would require
> a perception test to spot and then subject to the spirits Essence Rating
> adding to the test, if it was concealing.

Well, I tend to disagree. I feel that when the book says "its terrain", it
means the type of terrain metaphorically appropriate to that spirit (namely
a house for a hearth spirit, a street for a city spirit and so on). If the
spirit was using it's Concealment power on a Banshee, then the vehicle might
be even more noticeable on the astral due to the extra magical activity
accompanying it. As far as I know (and several people have pointed out), the
_only_ way to "hide" on the astral is to use Masking, the initiate
metamagical ability. This does not cover vehicles.

BTW, I liked the "Turn Plane Exterior Invisible" spell. Very good thinking.
Has a bit too much potential for mucking with the holy Game Balance though
in my view, could you imagine the limitless uses for a spell such as that?
But, it fits in the rules, much the same as Invisibility does, so there's
nothing wrong with it.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:38:00 +0100
> In real life, you can only block a laser transmission in two ways:
>1) block the emitter physically so the laser beam cannot get "out" and
>2) intersperse some sort of physical barrier in the beam path.
> There aren't any other ways to do so that I know of, and certainly
>an electronic jammer isn't going to do it. If you can think of another
>way I'd love to hear it.

Maybe you could shine another laser (of the same frequency as the emitter)
into the receiver? I haven't really thought this through, so I don't know if
it would work...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oooh! Smells like a job for ... TOILETMAN!!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 8
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:31:33 -0500
On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> The "aural wholeness" discussions on SR2hard page 109, Grimore and RBB
> page 104 the heading of both is "Combat Spells Against Vehicles".
> Operative word is "Combat", the spell I described above is a manipulation
> not combat. Grimore page 111 "Combat spells pump DAMAGING energy directly
> into the aura(s) of the target(s)." Grimore page 112 "Manipulation spells
> can be physical or mana based and are used to TRANSFORM, TRANSMUTE,
> CONTROL, or ANIMATE matter or energy." So yes with a noncombat spell
> you can target a specific area of the vehicle.

I have a problem with this. If you are attacking the black box
with a combat spell, you are subject to "aural wholeness." If you are
attacking it with a damaging manipulation, you are subject to the fact
that the spell will hit the invisible parts of the plane and spend its
energy there. You see, a damaging manipulation goes in a direct line
from caster to target in real space. Damaging manipulations can't be
cast through windows for exactly that reason. As such, the invisible
parts of the plane are effectively windows. So you have to chew through
the plane's exterior to get at the infamous little black box, which
leaves you right backl where you started from.

Marc
Message no. 9
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 18:04:02 -0600
>> In real life, you can only block a laser transmission in two ways:
>>1) block the emitter physically so the laser beam cannot get "out" and
>>2) intersperse some sort of physical barrier in the beam path.
>> There aren't any other ways to do so that I know of, and certainly
>>an electronic jammer isn't going to do it. If you can think of another
>>way I'd love to hear it.
>
>Maybe you could shine another laser (of the same frequency as the emitter)
>into the receiver? I haven't really thought this through, so I don't know if
>it would work...
>
You on the right track for one technique.

Sinbad Sam

>Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Oooh! Smells like a job for ... TOILETMAN!!
>Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
>P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
>B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
>
>
Message no. 10
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 18:13:32 -0600
>Sam Thomas writes:
>
>> This consensus at my end is that spirit powers of concealment due affect
>> astral preception SR2hard page 217 "This power refers to a being's
>> ability to hide within "its terrain" ... ...Concealment adds the
being's
>> Essence Rating to the target number of any "Perception Test" the
>> gamemaster requires." Grimore page 87 ... "astral beings are all
spirits
>> of some kind. ... they are native to the astral space." Thus a nature
>> spirit's terrain is its domain and the astral area associated with that
>> domain. Spotting a fast moving Banshee thru a astral apace would require
>> a perception test to spot and then subject to the spirits Essence Rating
>> adding to the test, if it was concealing.
>
>Well, I tend to disagree. I feel that when the book says "its terrain", it
>means the type of terrain metaphorically appropriate to that spirit (namely
>a house for a hearth spirit, a street for a city spirit and so on). If the
>spirit was using it's Concealment power on a Banshee, then the vehicle might
>be even more noticeable on the astral due to the extra magical activity
>accompanying it. As far as I know (and several people have pointed out), the
>_only_ way to "hide" on the astral is to use Masking, the initiate
>metamagical ability. This does not cover vehicles.

Well here is question why do you have to be adept using masking? One response
is that humans/metahumans are not native to the astral plane. Thus it takes
a greater understanding (read initiation) to mask there. Then why could
a being native to astral space not hide on it/or hide others. The powers of
spirits become really a joke if the some, if not all, of thier powers do
no have an effect on the astral, such as alienation it is not that great a
power if any mage can see the object of that power on the astral plane. The
consensus here that a spirit with conceal on the mundane and the astral
plane, but it does require two services.

>BTW, I liked the "Turn Plane Exterior Invisible" spell. Very good thinking.
>Has a bit too much potential for mucking with the holy Game Balance though
>in my view, could you imagine the limitless uses for a spell such as that?
>But, it fits in the rules, much the same as Invisibility does, so there's
>nothing wrong with it.
>
>--
>Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
>(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
> N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
> B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
>
Sinbad Sam
Message no. 11
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:22:08 -0800
On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> Unless corporate management techniques change radically by 2054, corps
> will suffer from "inertia". The larger the corp the greater the degree

True, but I think the ruthless nature of corp "competition" and
the constant employment of shadowrunners may sharpen corp security
departments to a degree not seen in the Secret Service. The Jerusalem
Bomb Disposal Squad, for example, are extremely good at their job, since
they dispose of about 12 bombs per day.
The same sort of Darwinism would apply to security branches.

> RBB page 102....dice from the Control Pool are allocated to different
> "vehicle related tasks" during either the Combat or combat turn....
> Now is sensor enhanced targeting, ECM/ECCM vehicle realted tests well

Ah ... but the operative word is "Combat" and one isn't acquiring
a satellite for the purposes of battle, hence I don't think the Control
Pool applies. It applies for Piloting/Driving the vehicle, Position
Tests, and in the case of combat it acts like Combat Pool dice to
increase *Gunnery*, not sensor targetting of same.

> them. What I am leading up to is that most of the electronics could be
> replaced by optical chips with right programming. An interesting
> possiblity eh.

I agree.

> Well think that you will not find that Electronic Warfare techniques and
> theory not covered in quantum optics classes. Look up the texts you will

The underlying theory of lasers is there in physics, just like
the underlying theory in EW is Maxwell's equations.

> This consensus at my end is that spirit powers of concealment due affect
> astral preception SR2hard page 217 "This power refers to a being's
> ability to hide within "its terrain" ... ...Concealment adds the being's

The hole in this argument is that the spirit must physically
manifest in order to conceal. If both astral space and the physical
plane were considered it's "domain" for the purposes of concealment, then
physical manifestation would not be necessary. I stand by my statement:
a spirit using the powers of concealment is astrally visible. In fact,
with a little digging I think I could even find an example (or perhaps
some kind soul could find one).

> The "aural wholeness" discussions on SR2hard page 109, Grimore and RBB
> page 104 the heading of both is "Combat Spells Against Vehicles".

No. Regardless of the heading, the point being made is that the
vehicle has one and only one aura. Any spell, health, manipulation,
combat or otherwise affects the entire aura of the target. One cannot
target the tires of a vehicle because the tires are not separate from the
vehicle, and the spell cannot distinguish. Remember that spells are
synchronized and targetted with aura. You cannot affect just a part of
the aura of a vehicle; therefore, you cannot turn just the exterior of a
vehicle transparent, leaving the rest of the vehicle normal. Either the
whole vehicle is transparent or it isn't; you can't separate out the parts.

> As to it being "Cheating" familarity with the rules and creativeness
> within same is not cheating merely very good player inventiveness.

I meant that the rules weren't being correctly interpreted, and
that this incorrect interpretation was used as a loophole to accomplish
something you cannot do.

> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 12
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:31:03 -0800
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Gurth wrote:

> Maybe you could shine another laser (of the same frequency as the emitter)
> into the receiver? I haven't really thought this through, so I don't know if
> it would work...

Possibly, but this technique would be hard to do without
targetting the receiver.

> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 13
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:48:15 -0800
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> >Sam Thomas writes:
> Well here is question why do you have to be adept using masking? One response
> is that humans/metahumans are not native to the astral plane. Thus it takes

Nooo ... it's because in order to mask, you need access to the
metaplanes, which you don't get until you become an initiate.
Masking is the initiate raising her aura to a metaplane so that
it is out of view from the etheric (going off in an "impossible"
90-degree angle from such). She then replaces her true aura with the
astral equivalent of the razzle-dazzle any magician can form around her
when astral space is entered (ie cool clothes, a new self-image, etc.)

> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 14
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 18:55:33 -0600
>On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:
>
>> The "aural wholeness" discussions on SR2hard page 109, Grimore and RBB
>> page 104 the heading of both is "Combat Spells Against Vehicles".
>> Operative word is "Combat", the spell I described above is a
manipulation
>> not combat. Grimore page 111 "Combat spells pump DAMAGING energy directly
>> into the aura(s) of the target(s)." Grimore page 112 "Manipulation
spells
>> can be physical or mana based and are used to TRANSFORM, TRANSMUTE,
>> CONTROL, or ANIMATE matter or energy." So yes with a noncombat spell
>> you can target a specific area of the vehicle.
>
> I have a problem with this. If you are attacking the black box
>with a combat spell, you are subject to "aural wholeness." If you are
>attacking it with a damaging manipulation, you are subject to the fact
>that the spell will hit the invisible parts of the plane and spend its
>energy there. You see, a damaging manipulation goes in a direct line
>from caster to target in real space. Damaging manipulations can't be
>cast through windows for exactly that reason. As such, the invisible
>parts of the plane are effectively windows. So you have to chew through
>the plane's exterior to get at the infamous little black box, which
>leaves you right backl where you started from.
>
Marc

You are correct on your first example about combat spells. But I would
use a manipulation rather than a combat spell. As to statement about
going direct well, Grimore page 110 .. "When a spell reaches its target,
it creates the effect the magician desires by transfering "ASTRAL" energy
into the physcial plane. Because this process connects the aura of the
casting magician directly to the aura of his target, spellcasting requires
line-of-sight targeting." I believe that is what you meant by the above
statement. But here are some additional points Grimore page 112 " A
magician can aim an area-effect spell at a point in space rather than a
specific target." Which means I can target a spell at point that just so
happens to touch the black box. I would transfrom the box into gue or
something else like helium. Now depending upon if my spell is sustained
or permanent I lean toward permanent, the molecules scatter thru out the
airframe. Rendering the black box a mute point. Grimore page 112
"Damaging manipulations ALWAYS involve elemental effects." No elemental
effect just transformation/alteration no elemental effects. Thus not a
damaging manipulation. As to being not able to cast damaging
manipulation not being able to cast thru windows. SR2hard page 128
"Manipulations do not have the same line-of-sight restrictions as
combat spells." SR2hard page 130 Spell Targeting "Mirrors work fine,
and transparent glass is no hinderance,..." Well that makes interesting
counter yes? To clarify one point the spell turns the object transparent
not invisible.

Sinbad Sam
Message no. 15
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:15:31 -0800
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> >On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:
> statement. But here are some additional points Grimore page 112 " A
> magician can aim an area-effect spell at a point in space rather than a
> specific target." Which means I can target a spell at point that just so

Not if that point in space intersects someone's aura. Then you
must target the aura, and has been stated before, a vehicle has a single,
primitive aura.

> combat spells." SR2hard page 130 Spell Targeting "Mirrors work fine,
> and transparent glass is no hinderance,..." Well that makes interesting

And if you'd read the rest of the paragraph, you would read the
section about the damaging manipulations not being able to go though
glass and mirrors without hitting them.

> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 16
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 19:45:05 -0600
>> RBB page 102....dice from the Control Pool are allocated to different
>> "vehicle related tasks" during either the Combat or combat turn....
>> Now is sensor enhanced targeting, ECM/ECCM vehicle realted tests well
>
> Ah ... but the operative word is "Combat" and one isn't acquiring
>a satellite for the purposes of battle, hence I don't think the Control
>Pool applies. It applies for Piloting/Driving the vehicle, Position
>Tests, and in the case of combat it acts like Combat Pool dice to
>increase *Gunnery*, not sensor targetting of same.

But sensor targeting is one of the ways that a rigger hits a target with
a weapon system. Others being optical and smart munitions. But as to rest
it is up to the DM interperations as it not clearly spelled out.

> The underlying theory of lasers is there in physics, just like
>the underlying theory in EW is Maxwell's equations.

If Maxwell's equations are the underlying theory of Electronic Warfare
then I should not have to spell it out. But if Maxwell's equations do not
tell you how then look up the texts. Obvously the equations leave
something to be desired.

> The hole in this argument is that the spirit must physically
>manifest in order to conceal. If both astral space and the physical
>plane were considered it's "domain" for the purposes of concealment, then
>physical manifestation would not be necessary. I stand by my statement:
>a spirit using the powers of concealment is astrally visible. In fact,
>with a little digging I think I could even find an example (or perhaps
>some kind soul could find one).

I disagree but I do say that it would require two services.

>> The "aural wholeness" discussions on SR2hard page 109, Grimore and RBB
>> page 104 the heading of both is "Combat Spells Against Vehicles".
>
> No. Regardless of the heading, the point being made is that the
>vehicle has one and only one aura. Any spell, health, manipulation,
>combat or otherwise affects the entire aura of the target. One cannot
>target the tires of a vehicle because the tires are not separate from the
>vehicle, and the spell cannot distinguish. Remember that spells are
>synchronized and targetted with aura. You cannot affect just a part of
>the aura of a vehicle; therefore, you cannot turn just the exterior of a
>vehicle transparent, leaving the rest of the vehicle normal. Either the
>whole vehicle is transparent or it isn't; you can't separate out the parts.

Well then that means that you cannot target people inside a vehicle even
thought the books specifically states that you can under Spell Targeting
SR2hard page 130. Manipulation spells can be targeted at a point in
space. Your arguement needs to realigned with the stated rules. Grimore
page 111"Combat spells pump damaging energy directly into the aura(s) of
the target(s)." And Finally Grimore page 112 " A magician can aim an
area-effect spell at a point in space rather than a specific target."
What that all boils down is that manipulation spells do not always
have to see the target. I am not affecting the aura of the vehicle I
and transfroming/altering the area of my spell. That means that by the
rules stated in several locations/books you can target specfic areas
using the right kind/type of spell. If you don like that then change it
for your game.

>> As to it being "Cheating" familarity with the rules and creativeness
>> within same is not cheating merely very good player inventiveness.
>
> I meant that the rules weren't being correctly interpreted, and
>that this incorrect interpretation was used as a loophole to accomplish
>something you cannot do.

I have read the rules as they are stated, I have not interperated them so
thus I have not been subject to loopholing. Again creativeness is not
cheating it is the essence of roleplaying. Clarify one point the group
that I play with made a consensus regrading the Conceal power of spirits.
Sinbad Sam
>
>=========================================================================
>Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
>acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
>http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
>=========================================================================
>
>
Message no. 17
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 19:47:03 -0600
>On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Gurth wrote:
>
>> Maybe you could shine another laser (of the same frequency as the emitter)
>> into the receiver? I haven't really thought this through, so I don't know if
>> it would work...
>
> Possibly, but this technique would be hard to do without
>targetting the receiver.

Again today it is not that hard to do by todays tech.
Sinbad Sam

>> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
>
>=========================================================================
>Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
>acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
>http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
>=========================================================================
>
>
Message no. 18
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 11:37:28 +0930
Sam Thomas wrote:
>
> Well here is question why do you have to be adept using masking? One response
> is that humans/metahumans are not native to the astral plane. Thus it takes
> a greater understanding (read initiation) to mask there. Then why could
> a being native to astral space not hide on it/or hide others. The powers of
> spirits become really a joke if the some, if not all, of thier powers do
> no have an effect on the astral, such as alienation it is not that great a
> power if any mage can see the object of that power on the astral plane. The
> consensus here that a spirit with conceal on the mundane and the astral
> plane, but it does require two services.
>
Spirits aren't native to the Astral Plane. They are native to their
metaplanes. About the only thing I can think of that is native to the
Astral Plane are watchers.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 11:43:34 +0930
Sam Thomas wrote:
>
> I disagree but I do say that it would require two services.
>
> >> The "aural wholeness" discussions on SR2hard page 109, Grimore and
RBB
> >> page 104 the heading of both is "Combat Spells Against Vehicles".
> >
> > No. Regardless of the heading, the point being made is that the
> >vehicle has one and only one aura. Any spell, health, manipulation,
> >combat or otherwise affects the entire aura of the target. One cannot
> >target the tires of a vehicle because the tires are not separate from the
> >vehicle, and the spell cannot distinguish. Remember that spells are
> >synchronized and targetted with aura. You cannot affect just a part of
> >the aura of a vehicle; therefore, you cannot turn just the exterior of a
> >vehicle transparent, leaving the rest of the vehicle normal. Either the
> >whole vehicle is transparent or it isn't; you can't separate out the parts.
>
> Well then that means that you cannot target people inside a vehicle even
> thought the books specifically states that you can under Spell Targeting
> SR2hard page 130. Manipulation spells can be targeted at a point in
> space. Your arguement needs to realigned with the stated rules. Grimore
> page 111"Combat spells pump damaging energy directly into the aura(s) of
> the target(s)." And Finally Grimore page 112 " A magician can aim an
> area-effect spell at a point in space rather than a specific target."
> What that all boils down is that manipulation spells do not always
> have to see the target. I am not affecting the aura of the vehicle I
> and transfroming/altering the area of my spell. That means that by the
> rules stated in several locations/books you can target specfic areas
> using the right kind/type of spell. If you don like that then change it
> for your game.
>
No... the aura of the inhabitants of the car aren't part of the car. You
can target it seperately.

You can only target Physical spells at a point, Mana based spells have to
go to a (living) target.

Manipulation spells form around the caster and go in a straight line to the
target point. If they hit anything in the middle, they stop there. So while
you don't have to _see_ the target point, you have to have a direct line,
and not just LOS.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 20
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:42:45 -0600
>On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:
>
>> >On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:
>> statement. But here are some additional points Grimore page 112 " A
>> magician can aim an area-effect spell at a point in space rather than a
>> specific target." Which means I can target a spell at point that just so
>
> Not if that point in space intersects someone's aura. Then you
>must target the aura, and has been stated before, a vehicle has a single,
>primitive aura.
>
>> combat spells." SR2hard page 130 Spell Targeting "Mirrors work fine,
>> and transparent glass is no hinderance,..." Well that makes interesting
>
> And if you'd read the rest of the paragraph, you would read the
>section about the damaging manipulations not being able to go though
>glass and mirrors without hitting them.

Repeat damaging manipulations have elemental effects, the spell I described
has transformation/alteration and no elemental effects. Thus not a damaging
manipulation.
As to the rest of the paragraph
Well the discussion is on SR2hard page 150. That still does not contradict th
turning of the skin of the airframe transparent. As for the targeting the black
box it still can happen. Lets see DW Osprey armor value 3 halved round to 2 add
impact armor of 3 equals total of 5. Spell force of 8 against barrier of 5.
Impact rating of three reduces power by three, now we have spell force of 5
against barrier rating of 5 spell does not pentrate. I would need a spell
force of 9 or better to penetrate. Then the black box can be affected by the
spell.

>> Sinbad Sam
>
>=========================================================================
>Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
>acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
>http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
>=========================================================================
>
>
Message no. 21
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 16:56:05 +1100
Robert Watkins writes:

> You can only target Physical spells at a point, Mana based spells have to
> go to a (living) target.

I think you'll find that you can only target Damaging Manipulation spells at
a point, all other spells (including physical combat spells as far as I can
tell) need to actually be centered on a living target.

> Manipulation spells form around the caster and go in a straight line to the
> target point. If they hit anything in the middle, they stop there. So while
> you don't have to _see_ the target point, you have to have a direct line,
> and not just LOS.

Not if it is an area effect Damaging Manipulation spell, they work very
similarly to grenades. It is quite possible to get people around corners.

> A Combat Spell affects only the targets designated. If it hurt everyone,
> it'd hurt people around corners, etc.

I should have made myself clearer. A Combat spell effects _everyone_ in the
area of effect who the magician can see. It specifically states this in both
the Grimything and SR2, indicating that friends, foes and neutral targets
are attacked equally. I guess this includes the casting magician too if he
casts it too close.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(*) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') (!)tv(--)@
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 22
From: Sean Sheridan <sean@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 04:58:27 -0600
Damion Milliken said in his response to the question about combat spells
in melee combat that a mage can only harm others with an AE combat spell
if he can see their aura, and that all visible auras are effected.
He then said that the casting magician is affected also. Can the mage
actually see his own aura? Would he be seeing all of it?
HMMMMMM.....
Sean
Message no. 23
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 09:09:16 -0800
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> But sensor targeting is one of the ways that a rigger hits a target with
> a weapon system. Others being optical and smart munitions. But as to rest
> it is up to the DM interperations as it not clearly spelled out.

That's like saying a samurai can boost his perception test with his
Combat Pool since that's the way he targets vehicles ... a rigger can
boost gunnery by paying extra attention to aiming, not boosting senses.
That remains in the realm of tactical computers.

> If Maxwell's equations are the underlying theory of Electronic Warfare
> then I should not have to spell it out. But if Maxwell's equations do not

They do tell you what you can and cannot do.
I would dearly like to see some references for jamming lasers.
It is all well and good to wave your hands and say it is out there, but
if I were to assert that the Vernan cipher is unbreakable, I'd sure have
to provide references for the knowledgeable people in this area
(Stainless Steel Rat). You should do likewise if you want to prove your
arguments' correct.

> I disagree but I do say that it would require two services.

What is there to disagree about? There are "Hearth" spirits and
"Sea" spirits and "Plains" spirits ... Nature spirits have domains,
elementals do not. "Domain" refers to a physical land type, rather than
a place of existance. By your arguments, elementals would have the
"domain" of astral space, yet clearly elementals do not have domains.
The concealment power only applies on a nature spirits' domain, which is
Hearth for a Hearth spirit, City for a city spirit, and so forth. There
are no "Astral" nature spirits that have the etheric plane as their
domain, sorry.

> Well then that means that you cannot target people inside a vehicle even

That's because a persons' vibrant, living aura can be
theoretically distinguished from a vehicles' primitive aura. Thus the
spell can discern a separate aura to target.
There is one case and one case only when a spell does not require
an aura to hit a target. In the case of damaging manipulations, the
spell caster brings the spell into the physical plane through her own
aura, and the released astral energies travel through _physical_ space to
reach their target. In the case of, say, Firebomb, this means that when
the spell reaches the hallway and explodes, the physical release of
energy does not require an aura to target a person hiding behind the
corner, exactly like a grenade. The physical energies do not require
aura, but the spell itself does. That's why combat area of effect spells
require *all* their targets to be seen by the caster ... so she can pump
the damaging energies into all her opponents' auras.
And, by the way, that's why damaging manipulations don't deal
with glass and mirrors very well. They strike the glass and detonate.
In no case can you ever target part of an aura, period. Your
spell "Turn Airframe Exterior Transparent" does not work.

> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 24
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 09:15:21 -0800
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Sam Thomas wrote:

> > Possibly, but this technique would be hard to do without
> >targetting the receiver.
>
> Again today it is not that hard to do by todays tech.

Oh really? So the Russians and the U.S. Army will have no
trouble jamming laser-guided smart bombs from F-117's and their ilk?
If you have precise information about your target, like their
current latitude, longitude, altitude, airspeed and course, then you
don't have to jam their transmissions.
You just shoot them down.
I'm talking about "blanket" ECM effects like Wild Weasels put out
on SAM suppression when they don't yet know where the SAMs are yet. This
kind of "laser" jamming would be useless for this purpose ... and there
seems to be a lot of un-obsoleted laser-guided Mavericks and smart bombs
in our inventory, as well.

> Sinbad Sam

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 25
From: Sean Sheridan <sean@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 18:37:06 -0600
About not targetting people inside a vehicle, what about firing mana spells
I think I read in some book(never deal with a dragon, or it's sequel) about
some clone or body being turned to go inside a VTOL. Yeah that was SRI
but I think the point is that if you can SEE the person you can SEE their aura
Then you can target them. Inside a Van, with dark windoes NO WAY.
Back of a Jeep, Sure thing.
Sean
Message no. 26
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:53:30 +1100
Sean Sheridan writes:

> About not targetting people inside a vehicle, what about firing mana spells
> I think I read in some book(never deal with a dragon, or it's sequel) about
> some clone or body being turned to go inside a VTOL.

I thought that worked because the side doors to the chopper were open, and
the caster (Sally) could see in to zap the guy on the stretcher.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 27
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:38:06 +0100
> Oh really? So the Russians and the U.S. Army will have no
>trouble jamming laser-guided smart bombs from F-117's and their ilk?

What I meant with shining a laser in the receiver to jam transmissions was
for _communications_, not for LGBs. How on earth would you keep a laser
exactly pointed at the nose of a falling bomb??


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's the first draft Of a worst case scenario
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 28
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sensors And Detection
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 08:55:51 -0800
On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:

> What I meant with shining a laser in the receiver to jam transmissions was
> for _communications_, not for LGBs. How on earth would you keep a laser
> exactly pointed at the nose of a falling bomb??

Exactly. How on earth would you keep a laser exactly pointed at
the communications pod on the underwing of a tactical fighter? Or the
emitter dish of an AWACs?

> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Sensors And Detection, 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!