Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Stephen Wilcoxon <wilcoxon@***.UDEL.EDU>
Subject: US "eyes" and mages...
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 05:17:18 EDT
An interesting thought just occurred to me. According to the rules, a mage
can target a spell by using any enhanced vision from cybereyes. If you
allow this to extend to US then it makes some spells effectively useless
(improved invis. and probably a few more). What's everyone else think on
this (I'm withholding an opinion for now)?


Twilight

The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life.
-- The Player's Litany
Message no. 2
From: "Legion Systems, Inc." <legion@**************.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: US eyes and mages...
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 11:50:44 MDT
Your insight is correct. US does indeed make spells like invisibility
a little less comforting to use. Spells like mask are are more effective
than invisibility when confronting US in any form because the person
viewing the target would have modifiers to tell a difference between
the mask and the actual US image. If he noticed a difference at all.

Remember, US is still cost prohibitive in any form to the normal
shadow-runner, and the eyes are available only in alpha or beta models
hence making them much less in use and a specialized modification
to boot.

_________________________________
/________________________________/|
Mike Loseke || Hangin' ten on the New Frontier
legion@**************.army.mil ||
Minister of Death - SWO ||
_________________________________|/ (cheesy 3-D .sig!)
Message no. 3
From: "Richard C. Osterhout" <rcoster@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: US "eyes" and mages...
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 05:59:20 -0400
On Tue, 10 Aug 1993, Stephen Wilcoxon wrote:

> An interesting thought just occurred to me. According to the rules, a mage
> can target a spell by using any enhanced vision from cybereyes. If you
what???? no, only if its optical...ie: if a mage wants the Magnification
X3 option, it must be the optical one, not the electronic....


> allow this to extend to US then it makes some spells effectively useless
> (improved invis. and probably a few more). What's everyone else think on
> this (I'm withholding an opinion for now)?
>
well, first off, invisibility spells only work against visible light, not
heat (thermo) or sound (ultrasound)...this is EXACTLY why the discussion
of the ultrasound came up, because the characters in my party wanted to
use ultrasound to hunt down inviso mages...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| rcoster@*****.net Currently in Baltimore, MD |
| Richard C. Osterhout but hope to be home in |
| professional nerd Orlando, FL soon!!! |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: "Dylan Norhtup (PHY)" <norhtup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: US "eyes" and mages...
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 22:03:21 -0400
On Tue, 10 Aug 1993, Richard C. Osterhout wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 1993, Stephen Wilcoxon wrote:
>
> > An interesting thought just occurred to me. According to the rules, a mage
> > can target a spell by using any enhanced vision from cybereyes. If you
> what???? no, only if its optical...ie: if a mage wants the Magnification
> X3 option, it must be the optical one, not the electronic....

In SR II (no page citation) it says that if the magician pays the essence
for the eyes and its enhancements, he can use them to sight foro casting
purposes.

Doc X
****************************************************************************
* Witty Remark * Dylan Northrup <norhtup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * This space *
* Here * (Yeah I know they spelled my name wrong) * for rent *
****************************************************************************
No quote today

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about US "eyes" and mages..., 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!