Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Vincent Pellerin <Vincent.Pellerin@***.GMC.ULAVAL.CA>
Subject: Vince questions VII
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 21:24:30 -0400
Well, this are my last questions (but some other have come to my
mind during the discussions!)



GII.26 Stacking enchantements

What is the rating of a magical item with multiple
enchantements for the grounding and astral combat ?

A)The highest rating of the functions
B)The lowest rating
*C)The sum of all the functions ratings
D)The highest + 1/2 sum of the lower functions

Do you activate it a function at a time (does it count as
multiple magic item for the limit SRII.137) ?
Yes
No
*Maybe, depending of formula (choice of the maker)

If you activate a stacked enchantements focus containing
a spell lock, does it dissapear (spell locks become insubstantial
when sustaining a spell).

yes
No
*Maybe, depending of formula (choice of the maker)

<<I know the answer of that one now (NAGM), the spell lock does'nt become
insubtantial but it could still stand for the "dissapear to the mundanes"
part, somebody would not look twice at a magic sword drawn out ?>>

GII.86 (SRII.146) Humans on the astral

What is the astral reaction of a mage in astral projection ?

A)Twice is intelligence (SRII.146)
B)Is physical reaction (GII.86 state that the special
attributes do not change in astral space)
C)Is intelligence (from somewhere else, i don't remember)

GII.86 (Shadowtech) Human on the astral

Is the bioware and cyberware of the shadowtech modifying
the atral characteristics of someone ?
No (as state in the Grimoire)
Yes (as said in the Shadowtech)
Depend (cite exeptions)

GII.131 All barrier spells

Is the personal form of these spells having the same
effect as the physical barrier (SRII.158) : force field of cracling
energy, with a visibility modifier of +1 ?

*Yes
No

GII.131 Blade barrier

What is the use of this spell, for a big area ? Keep to
knifes out of it ?

"Goon: Boss, i can't go trough!!
Boss: So drop your knife, take your bat and follow me. "


Well this is it. The rest was possible erratas left out of the erratas
sheat that made their way to me. The only thing left for me is to wait out
the answers of FASATom, i will let you know when i get them.

_________________________________________________________________________
| _____ "You are yong only once....... |
| \ \ / ......... but you can be immature all yourlife !" |
| \ __/ / -heard somewhere, i don'tremember |
| \ / |
| \_/ Vincent.Pellerin@***.gmc.ulaval.ca |
|________________________________________________________________________|
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:33:49 +0930
Vincent Pellerin wrote:
>
> GII.26 Stacking enchantements
>
> What is the rating of a magical item with multiple
> enchantements for the grounding and astral combat ?
>
> A)The highest rating of the functions
> B)The lowest rating
> *C)The sum of all the functions ratings
> D)The highest + 1/2 sum of the lower functions

Can't remember for certain, but I believe it's mentioned in the Grimoire.
I'm pretty sure it's either B or D.

> Do you activate it a function at a time (does it count as
> multiple magic item for the limit SRII.137) ?
> Yes
> No
> *Maybe, depending of formula (choice of the maker)

I play it that you activate it all or nothing. Yes, they all count to the
limit.

> If you activate a stacked enchantements focus containing
> a spell lock, does it dissapear (spell locks become insubstantial
> when sustaining a spell).
> yes
> No
> *Maybe, depending of formula (choice of the maker)

'Course not. Actually, you may have it become faint, or more obscure, or
smaller. But the much greater part of the full enchantments keep it there.

> GII.86 (SRII.146) Humans on the astral
>
> What is the astral reaction of a mage in astral projection ?
>
> A)Twice is intelligence (SRII.146)
> B)Is physical reaction (GII.86 state that the special
> attributes do not change in astral space)
> C)Is intelligence (from somewhere else, i don't remember)

The formula doesn't change... it's still the average of Quickness and
Intelligence. It's just that Astral Quickness is equal to Intelligence, so
Astral Reaction is equal to Intelligence (normally).


> GII.86 (Shadowtech) Human on the astral
>
> Is the bioware and cyberware of the shadowtech modifying
> the atral characteristics of someone ?
> No (as state in the Grimoire)
> Yes (as said in the Shadowtech)
> Depend (cite exeptions)

Disputed point. In general, cyberware doesn't affect Astral, while bioware
would if it made sense to do so. (Tailored Pheremones, for example, are way
out.) However, the entry in the encephalon in early printings said it did
affect magical tasks. This was changed later.

Do what you want, is my suggestion (me, I leave all such mods behind...
they may be part of you, paid for by Essence, and what not, but they aren't
fully integrated into your aura. That's just a house rule, though.)

> GII.131 All barrier spells
>
> Is the personal form of these spells having the same
> effect as the physical barrier (SRII.158) : force field of cracling
> energy, with a visibility modifier of +1 ?
>
> *Yes
> No

Yep.

> GII.131 Blade barrier
>
> What is the use of this spell, for a big area ? Keep to
> knifes out of it ?
>
> "Goon: Boss, i can't go trough!!
> Boss: So drop your knife, take your bat and follow me. "

Not much... the personal blade barrier might have some use, though. As
always, imaginative players will find uses. Like a blade barrier cast in
front of a go-gang (armed with, amongst other things, knives), and then
laughing as their jackets/belts/pants tear away, and they are probably
jerked off the bike.

--
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. 3
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 10:42:04 BST
> GII.86 (SRII.146) Humans on the astral
>
> What is the astral reaction of a mage in astral projection ?
>
> A)Twice is intelligence (SRII.146)
> B)Is physical reaction (GII.86 state that the special
> attributes do not change in astral space)
> C)Is intelligence (from somewhere else, i don't remember)


It's funy you should ask that, I was wondering if the SR-II rulebook
was in error when ti said 2x Intelligence, because that put spirits at
a sever disadnatage in the Astral vs Mages, anyone have an 'official'
ruling as to whether that's a mistake???

Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)
< But only lopes now in astral space....;-) >
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:17:52 +0930
P Ward wrote:
>
> It's funy you should ask that, I was wondering if the SR-II rulebook
> was in error when ti said 2x Intelligence, because that put spirits at
> a sever disadnatage in the Astral vs Mages, anyone have an 'official'
> ruling as to whether that's a mistake???

Uh? Even if you played with double intelligence, Spirits still get that
whopping +20 when in Astral space...

--
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. 5
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:04:43 BST
Yup, but isn;t it something along the lines of projecting mages get
2x intelligence + Grade + _15_, or have I really fragged up this time?

Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:38:03 +0930
P Ward wrote:
>
> Yup, but isn;t it something along the lines of projecting mages get
> 2x intelligence + Grade + _15_, or have I really fragged up this time?

I thought it was just Int + Grade + 10... I'll check sometime. I'm pretty
sure it's just the Int (ie, Astral reaction is calculated the same way
normal Reaction is, it's just that Astral Quick = Int.)


--
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. 7
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 22:52:40 +1000
Vincent Pellerin writes:

> What is the rating of a magical item with multiple
> enchantements for the grounding and astral combat ?

I'm pretty sure it is the sum of the Ratings, but after a look through the
books I can't find where I got that idea from, so I can't really give you an
answer.

> Do you activate it a function at a time (does it count as
> multiple magic item for the limit SRII.137) ?

Although I have no real basis for this, I'd say it only counted as a single
focus, but you had to have the entire thing active at once or off at once.

> If you activate a stacked enchantements focus containing
> a spell lock, does it dissapear (spell locks become insubstantial
> when sustaining a spell).

Hey, damn good question. I really don't know. Also, how about if I make my
spell lock in the form of a katana? Very useful for sneaking it past guards
and such.

> What is the astral reaction of a mage in astral projection ?

The Grimything supercedes the main rule book, so use the value given in it.
It says that astral Reaction is different from phsyical Reaction, and is
always equal to the characters Intelligence Attribute (pg 86). So an astral
magician (uninitiated) would have an astral Initiative of Int+15+1D6, while
an Initiate would have Int+Grade+15+1D6. While spirits get Force+20+1D6.

> GII.86 (Shadowtech) Human on the astral

I always though that those particular pieces of cyber/bioware which actually
stated they modifed your astral Attributes were the only ones which did (ie
Cerebral Booster & Encephalon). But someone said that this was corrected in
a second printing or some such thing, and that they no longer do. Is there
perhaps an errata floating around out there? Failing that, I'd use the
Grimything, since it came out later (and therefore over-rules previous
publishings). But, upon looking in the Grimything, it says "Generally
speaking...", which means that some bits of 'ware might. In which case I'd
go back to S-Tech and look for the particualr exceptions, and then,
depending on which printing of S-Tech I had, I'd get a different answer.
Could someone tell us what the second printing od S-Tech has to say on the
subject?

> Is the personal form of these spells having the same
> effect as the physical barrier (SRII.158) : force field of cracling
> energy, with a visibility modifier of +1 ?

You've already seen my confusion over Barrier spells, but I would say that
the personal form of the Physical Barrier would also have the +1.

> GII.131 Blade barrier
>
> What is the use of this spell, for a big area ? Keep to
> knifes out of it ?
>
> [Humerous example snipped]

Yeah, I see your point. Nobody I know has ever used the Blade Barrier (I
mean, just how useful could it be in 2050? compared to, say, a Bullet
Barrier), so the point has never come up. When you think about it, the spell
is more or less useless, unless someone throws a knife at you. Hmm, come to
think of it, would a Bullet Barrier exclude unfired ammunition from passing
through it? Or would it exclude the sammie with the 9mm round embedded in
his chest?

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 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. 8
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 17:03:26 +0200
> GII.26 Stacking enchantements
>
> What is the rating of a magical item with multiple
> enchantements for the grounding and astral combat ?
>
> A)The highest rating of the functions
> B)The lowest rating
> *C)The sum of all the functions ratings
> D)The highest + 1/2 sum of the lower functions

Thats an easy one, the rules explicitly state that the power of the
stacked focus is the summ of the different foci "present" in it. And
an astral attack has a TN equall to the power of the item being attacked.
So its C

> Do you activate it a function at a time (does it count as
> multiple magic item for the limit SRII.137) ?
> Yes
> No
> *Maybe, depending of formula (choice of the maker)

I'd say that its up to the player, but I am not actually sure.

> If you activate a stacked enchantements focus containing
> a spell lock, does it dissapear (spell locks become insubstantial
> when sustaining a spell).
>
> yes
> No
> *Maybe, depending of formula (choice of the maker)

Definitely not as its no lock anymore.

> GII.86 (Shadowtech) Human on the astral
>
> Is the bioware and cyberware of the shadowtech modifying
> the atral characteristics of someone ?
> No (as state in the Grimoire)
> Yes (as said in the Shadowtech)
> Depend (cite exeptions)

We had a long and gory discussion over this one, anyone remember the
outcome :)

> GII.131 All barrier spells
>
> Is the personal form of these spells having the same
> effect as the physical barrier (SRII.158) : force field of cracling
> energy, with a visibility modifier of +1 ?
>
> *Yes
> No

Why not, if its the same spell with a limited target it should do exactly
the same thing.

> GII.131 Blade barrier
>
> What is the use of this spell, for a big area ? Keep to
> knifes out of it ?
>
> "Goon: Boss, i can't go trough!!
> Boss: So drop your knife, take your bat and follow me. "

Exactly, specialised barriers are so stupid!

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 9
From: Vincent Pellerin <Vincent.Pellerin@***.GMC.ULAVAL.CA>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 21:59:00 -0400
Jani Fikouras answer to ...
>> GII.26 Stacking enchantements
>>
>> What is the rating of a magical item with multiple
>> enchantements for the grounding and astral combat ?
>>
>> (snip snip)

was...
>
> Thats an easy one, the rules explicitly state that the power of the
>stacked focus is the summ of the different foci "present" in it. And
>an astral attack has a TN equall to the power of the item being attacked.
>So its C
>
Sorry to look stupid but can you tell me where this explicit rule is ?

_________________________________________________________________________
| _____ "You are yong only once....... |
| \ \ / ......... but you can be immature all yourlife !" |
| \ __/ / -heard somewhere, i don'tremember |
| \ / |
| \_/ Vincent.Pellerin@***.gmc.ulaval.ca |
|________________________________________________________________________|
Message no. 10
From: Vincent Pellerin <Vincent.Pellerin@***.GMC.ULAVAL.CA>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 22:10:02 -0400
Damion Milliken answer to

>> GII.131 Blade barrier
>>
>> What is the use of this spell, for a big area ? Keep to
>> knifes out of it ?
>>
>> [Humerous example snipped]
>
>Yeah, I see your point. Nobody I know has ever used the Blade Barrier (I
>mean, just how useful could it be in 2050? compared to, say, a Bullet
>Barrier), so the point has never come up. When you think about it, the spell
>is more or less useless, unless someone throws a knife at you. Hmm, come to
>think of it, would a Bullet Barrier exclude unfired ammunition from passing
>through it? Or would it exclude the sammie with the 9mm round embedded in
>his chest?
>

I honestly don't think a barrier could recognized a bullet or even a blade.
The definition and should be reworked to say something like this..

Bullet barrier, the barrier stops fast moving light projectiles..
and Blade barrier, it stops relativly slow moving, heavy objects,
including blades, blunt weapons and arrows.

This kind of distinction would make clear that the spell work on some kind
of "energy" comparison process and is not trying to stop specific objects
(this would be ludicrous, the spell should have to recognized bullet in the
miriad of forms (apds, explosives, etc..) something that is highly
technological and so not easy for magic). This process would look more
"realistic" and more easily explainable in the context, but this would mean
that the area blade barrier as absolutly no use. Did that make sense to you?

_________________________________________________________________________
| _____ "You are yong only once....... |
| \ \ / ......... but you can be immature all yourlife !" |
| \ __/ / -heard somewhere, i don'tremember |
| \ / |
| \_/ Vincent.Pellerin@***.gmc.ulaval.ca |
|________________________________________________________________________|
Message no. 11
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 22:55:02 -0500
>>Yeah, I see your point. Nobody I know has ever used the Blade Barrier (I
>>mean, just how useful could it be in 2050? compared to, say, a Bullet
>>Barrier), so the point has never come up. When you think about it, the spell
>>is more or less useless, unless someone throws a knife at you. Hmm, come to
>>think of it, would a Bullet Barrier exclude unfired ammunition from passing
>>through it? Or would it exclude the sammie with the 9mm round embedded in
>>his chest?

> I honestly don't think a barrier could recognized a bullet or even a blade.
>The definition and should be reworked to say something like this..

> Bullet barrier, the barrier stops fast moving light projectiles..
>and Blade barrier, it stops relativly slow moving, heavy objects,
>including blades, blunt weapons and arrows.

Think about the force fields from the movie DUNE (I don't remember/know a
lot about them or the whole DUNE thing, but I do remember that they were
proof against fast objects while slow ones like knives could get through).

>This kind of distinction would make clear that the spell work on some kind
>of "energy" comparison process and is not trying to stop specific objects
>(this would be ludicrous, the spell should have to recognized bullet in the
>miriad of forms (apds, explosives, etc..) something that is highly
>technological and so not easy for magic). This process would look more
>"realistic" and more easily explainable in the context, but this would mean
>that the area blade barrier as absolutly no use. Did that make sense to you?

For simplification in gameplay's sake...bullet barrier is vs. ballistic
while blade barrier would be vs. impact. (Of course there'll be times where
that doesn't work, the MP Laser for instance, but it's an energy weapon and,
as such, a totally different subject).


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 12
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 11:33:01 +0200
>It's funy you should ask that, I was wondering if the SR-II rulebook
>was in error when ti said 2x Intelligence, because that put spirits at
>a sever disadnatage in the Astral vs Mages, anyone have an 'official'
>ruling as to whether that's a mistake???

I'd say the mistake is the the SR2 book, because the Grim2 came out after
it, and that say use base Intelligence. That also makes sense, because
Intelligence = Astral Quickness, so you'd average Int with Int, giving you
2x Int /2 = Int for Reaction...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
...the insects are huge and the poison's all been used...
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? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 11:33:20 +0200
> Exactly, specialised barriers are so stupid!

Except for the One-Way Barrier!


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
...the insects are huge and the poison's all been used...
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? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 14
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 00:59:07 +1000
Vincent Pellerin writes:

> I honestly don't think a barrier could recognized a bullet or even a blade.
> The definition and should be reworked to say something like this..

You're probably right, but then again, we never can tell (perhaps all
bullets have a similar aura or some such thing...)

> Bullet barrier, the barrier stops fast moving light projectiles.. and
> Blade barrier, it stops relativly slow moving, heavy objects, including
> blades, blunt weapons and arrows.

Blade Barrier then stops fists too, by that definition. And Bullet Barrier
wouldn't stop A-Cannon rounds (which would have to be as heavy as high-tech
crossbow bolts). But I do see what you mean, the current rules have spells
detecting very specific things, which may not be terribly logical. But is
the detection of speed any more logical? Why should a spell be any better at
detecting the veolcity of a projectile, then detecting the type of
projecticle? I can see that it's not as good as it could be the way it is,
but I don't think velocity or energy is especially preferrable to "bullet"
or "blade". Velocity or mass requires definite cut-offs, which can have
exceptions, while "bullet" or "blade", even given they mightn't be
entirely
believable, are a least clear definitions (and can be reasoned using auras
if really required).

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 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. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 16:35:18 +0200
>But I do see what you mean, the current rules have spells
>detecting very specific things, which may not be terribly logical. But is
>the detection of speed any more logical?

Maybe we should just give up thinking logically when magic comes into play
-- I know I'll have trouble doing that, but it seems the logical conclusion :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
he's not trying to catch your eye; he's just trying to get a life
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? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 16
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 15:20:26 +0200
> > Thats an easy one, the rules explicitly state that the power of the
> >stacked focus is the summ of the different foci "present" in it. And
> >an astral attack has a TN equall to the power of the item being attacked.
> >So its C
> >
> Sorry to look stupid but can you tell me where this explicit rule is ?

One explicit rule coming up :)

The Grimoire p 26-27 Stacking Enchantments

(rating 2 power / rating 3 combat spell focus)

The Karma cost for the first bonding is equal to the higher base cost,
multiplied by the total rating for the focus. In our example (...) or
5 times the total rating of 5.

As you can see the Grimoire clearly refers to the sum of the two ratings
as the total rating.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 17
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 00:32:32 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> > Sorry to look stupid but can you tell me where this explicit rule is ?
>
> One explicit rule coming up :)

Doesn't seem to explicit to me :-) Seems more "interpreted" as far as I can
tell.

> (rating 2 power / rating 3 combat spell focus)
>
> The Karma cost for the first bonding is equal to the higher base cost,
> multiplied by the total rating for the focus. In our example (...) or
> 5 times the total rating of 5.
>
> As you can see the Grimoire clearly refers to the sum of the two ratings
> as the total rating.

To me the explanation seems a little contrived. It refers to the sum of the
ratings as being the final rating, but it nowhere says that the final rating
is what the stacked focus uses for astral combat tests. The example was
explaining first bonding karma costs. In fact it is very easy to interpret it
that a stacked focus counts as two (or three etc) different foci when it
comes to astral combat - it doesn't say otherwise.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 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. 18
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 02:28:27 +0930
Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
> One explicit rule coming up :)
>
> The Grimoire p 26-27 Stacking Enchantments
>
> (rating 2 power / rating 3 combat spell focus)
>
> The Karma cost for the first bonding is equal to the higher base cost,
> multiplied by the total rating for the focus. In our example (...) or
> 5 times the total rating of 5.
>
> As you can see the Grimoire clearly refers to the sum of the two ratings
> as the total rating.

That's bonding cost, though, not the focus' combat rating.

I'd say that the foci have to be targeted together, but only the toughest
fights. (ie, use the highest single rating for astral combat)

--
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: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:15:33 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> I'd say that the foci have to be targeted together, but only the toughest
> fights. (ie, use the highest single rating for astral combat)

Yep, but it is just as easy to say they must be targeted together, and use
their combined rating, or even that they must be targeted separately. Which
is why I think it's a good question to ask the DLoH (or someone else as
appropriate), since there is no clear answer in the rules.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 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. 20
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Vince questions VII
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 14:02:21 +0200
> > > Sorry to look stupid but can you tell me where this explicit rule is ?
> > One explicit rule coming up :)
> Doesn't seem to explicit to me :-) Seems more "interpreted" as far as I can
> tell.

I guess it aint that explicit then, but I swear it looked pretty explicit
to me :)

> > (rating 2 power / rating 3 combat spell focus)
> >
> > The Karma cost for the first bonding is equal to the higher base cost,
> > multiplied by the total rating for the focus. In our example (...) or
> > 5 times the total rating of 5.
> >
> > As you can see the Grimoire clearly refers to the sum of the two ratings
> > as the total rating.
>
> To me the explanation seems a little contrived. It refers to the sum of the
> ratings as being the final rating, but it nowhere says that the final rating
> is what the stacked focus uses for astral combat tests.

You are right, nevertheless my reasoning is that the rating of a focus is
the TN of any attacking magician in the astral, and a stacked focus'
total rating is the sum of the smaller ratings (as per the rule). I think that
this is pretty clear and I think I can get ya a reference for the other rule
too (the one about the TN).

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vince questions VII, 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!