Invisibility vs. Sight

[Mainman112]

Hey everyone,

 

I need a rule clarification on Invisibility vs. Sight and other sensory groups.

 

There is a player at the table to who has invisibility to sight. He is making the claim that if you use any sight group to detect him, he will be un-detectable. This includes if you are looking at a radar screen, it would make a “Bleep” sound but you would not see the dot on the screen, because you would be using your “sight” to see the representation shown.

 

He has quoted pg 126 as his reference in which it states something like a battleships radar uses both radar (as the equipment) and normal sight (in order to see the screen). Because a radar screen uses sight (which is common) it would be -½ .

 

Now, I and two other players are unsure on this. With the exception of page 126, nowhere else in the book does it suggest that you are invisible to all mechanical representations? Not only does this seem ridicules, but it also seems very un-thematic. The problem in this case is that the argument has come up based solely on the rules and not on the spirit. The story teller has already said that he thinks it’s illogical however; this has become an argument of rules.

 

Does this mean that if someone is looking at a radar screen when a flash grenade goes off, the guy looking at the screen gets blinded even though he is not anywhere in the area? After all his “sight” group would be technically joint affected by radar according to page 126. Or is he reading this wrong?

 

I can’t imagine this being the case nor can the two other players. It seems completely silly and in many ways, it makes the sight group of sensory WAY to powerful. Is this a Rule 0 (the story teller makes the call) moment or is there rules that you can point me to that suggest that this player is misinformed?

 

Thanks.

 

Mainman112

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

I believe the limitation is due to the fact that you could use flash on the character or the equipment (or darkness). In other words, if a character with radar is sight flashed he can still use his radar to find you. If a character using a radar he has to look at (a focus/machine with the limitation you mention) is sight flashed he can’t use the radar to find you. Also, if the radar is flashed he can’t use the radar to find you. Make sense?

I have no rules to support this at the moment other than the books repeated instruction to use common and dramatic sense.

[Rapier]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Poppycock! I haven't said that in a while.

 

The player is reaching. Reaching HARD.

 

The example is as bigby explained.

 

If I have radar, flashing radar makes you invisible. If I work on a battleship and the battleship has radar, if you flash me sitting in my chair I cannot see the radar scope and cannot target you.

 

Logic. It makes a lot of sense.

 

Smack the player with a stick and tell him to get real!

[Manic Typist]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Slap him upside the head. That's such an abuse of logic that ancient Greek philosophers are rolling in their graves.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

He seriously used that line of logic?

 

Wow.

 

 

With a straight face?

[Mainman112]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Thanks for the responses. They have all been really awesome!

 

The problem is that common sense is not a frequently used sense in this case. The player wants this to work in his favor (for obvious reasons) and pg 126 (as ambiguous as it is) could go either way. As some of you have already said, this makes no logical sense.

 

What I’m hoping for is some rule that transcends the “spirit”, which can shut down the absurdity of this argument. The problem is that I agree with all of you as do the two other players. I think we have used words that are harsher in discussing the matter.

 

There is no question that being invisible to the “sight” group does not mean that you don’t show up on radar/sonar/… smelldar whatever. Nor does it mean that you can’t have a visual representation of you show up through the 3rd party non sight based equipment.

 

He says “…it says it right there in black and white on pg 126, it even uses radar as the example. I can’t be seen through any sight group because they are linked… why do you not seem to get that!?”

 

That is what we are dealing with.

 

 

Mainman112

[Manic Typist]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

The book, quite simply, doesn't say that. It deals with whether or not the operator of the device can see the device, not whether or not the visual indicator is generated by the device (because it is).

 

Now, if he wants to buy an ADVANTAGED form of Invisibility... that's fine! It actually sounds somewhat neat.

[Tasha]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Thanks for the responses. They have all been really awesome!

 

The problem is that common sense is not a frequently used sense in this case. The player wants this to work in his favor (for obvious reasons) and pg 126 (as ambiguous as it is) could go either way. As some of you have already said, this makes no logical sense.

 

What I’m hoping for is some rule that transcends the “spirit”, which can shut down the absurdity of this argument. The problem is that I agree with all of you as do the two other players. I think we have used words that are harsher in discussing the matter.

 

There is no question that being invisible to the “sight” group does not mean that you don’t show up on radar/sonar/… smelldar whatever. Nor does it mean that you can’t have a visual representation of you show up through the 3rd party non sight based equipment.

 

He says “…it says it right there in black and white on pg 126, it even uses radar as the example. I can’t be seen through any sight group because they are linked… why do you not seem to get that!?”

 

That is what we are dealing with.

 

 

Mainman112

 

OK this is the easy way to think of how it works. We have 2 Powered Armor Suits, One is a large mechanical monster that uses levers and petals to control the systems. Also the Operator percieves the outside world though the viewport and his HUD that he sees in front of him projected onto that viewport. The other one is an advanced design that is controlled though the operator's neural interface plugs. What the suit's sensors percieve is piped directly into the user's brain.

 

So the Villain Light bomb uses his 12d6 Flash vs Sight Group attack and rolls 12 segments of blindness on both of our Heroes. Both battlesuits have built in radar, but unfortunatly, the first Battlesuit cannot use his radar because he cannot see the readouts (he probably should have taken a limit on said radar btw), Our supertech Battlesuit is blind with his visual sensors only, and can switch over to radar perception as she doesn't have to see any dials (the sensor info is pipped into the person's brain).

 

For Invisibility, it sounds like the player wants something for free. If he has a mystical Invis that clouds other's perceptions to the point that said person will not even notice him on mechanical sensors, then he needs to purchase ALL of the sight groups he is invisible to. If you want to be technical, if the character hasn't purchased the power, then he doesn't have access to it. So if he hasn't paid for a sense group, then that sense group percieves said character period.

 

Tasha

[Yansuf]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

It depends on whether the flash can effect the operator, but not through the radar screen. i.e., if the operator is where he can visually see the flash, and it blinds him, then he cannot see the screen. But the radar does not carry a visual flash through its signal.

If the player cannot accept this, I suggest that you ask the quest of Steve Long in the rules question forum.

[Prometheus]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

I'd chalk this up as blatant rules abuse.

 

The question is whether or not a character can be detected. Here, the sense that's doing the actual detection is Radar; the special effect is that the user sees a blip on a display. And since Radar isn't in the Sight Group, affecting one doesn't cascade into the other. That's the reason why Senses affected across multiple groups (a Radar display that is Flashed as Sight and Radar) are bought with a Limitation. What your player is doing is trying to get around a rule by tying it down to a special effect.

 

Sorry, no.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Refer your character to Page 543 of 5er. Principals 3 and 8 are relevant here. This is not to say I agree that his interpretation of p 126 is correct in the first place, but even if he were, Principals 3 and 8 override that result - by the book.

 

Another answer would be " we don't allow rules lawyers - are you here to play, or to argue?"

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Another answer would be " we don't allow rules lawyers - are you here to play' date=' or to argue?"[/quote']

 

That is possibly the single best argument of all. Somebody rep that sucker for me, please.

 

Also, point out to the Player that the HERO system (and just about every other RPG ever created) says that it is the REFEREE who has final say on how rules are interpreted.

 

Ref's way or the highway, it really is that simple. This guy is BSing big time. I cannot believe any halfway decent Player would expect to get away with that ####. Is he really worth the trouble, Mainman112?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

"Affect As Other Sense" Limitation applies to the USER not the DETECT.

 

Radar Affected As Sight Group means you need Sight to see the Radar's output. The Radar Itself works on the Radio Group.

 

This is why the book is so thick - player's exactly like this guy being blatantly and purposely obtuse requiring everything being spelled out in painfully exacting detail.

[drunkonduty]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Well, Mainman, there's been plenty of good explanations already but I suspect your argumentative player is unlikely to listen to any explanation. But I've got some time to kill so here's another one you may like to try:

 

The Invisibility vs. Sight is passive: it does NOT effect the senses of the onlooker; it effects what is sensed. ie: The character does not reflect visible light for some reason, it does not blind the onlooker. (To effect the senses of the onlooker take Flash.)

 

But the character DOES reflect radar waves. This reflection is then picked up by the radar array. The radar array then interpolates said signal and projects it onto a screen which is seen by the onlooker, whose senses are working just fine thank-you.

 

So if Inviso-dork (I assume that's the character's name. If not it should be) were to be standing right in front of the radar screen the radar operator would not see Inviso-dork but but would see the dot on the screen.

 

Just read the rule your mate's misinterpreting. It's discussing Senses being effected. Technically this is not what Invisibility does. (see above)

 

Of course my first thought on reading your problem was to reach out and give that person a good clip over the ear.

 

cheers

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Another option. "OK, no one can perceive your dot on the radar screen with normal sight. Now, since your Invisibility costs END by default, please note the three sense groups its use is clearly perceivable by, in accordance with the Visibility of Powers rules, since we're playing by the absolute letter of the rules, rather than by reasonable interpretation guided by common and dramatic sense."

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Another option. "OK' date=' no one can perceive your dot on the radar screen with normal sight. Now, since your Invisibility costs END by default, please note the three sense groups its use is clearly perceivable by, in accordance with the Visibility of Powers rules, since we're playing by the absolute letter of the rules, rather than by reasonable interpretation guided by common and dramatic sense."[/quote']

 

"Whadda ya mean I have to buy my Invisibility with the Invisible Advantage?!"

 

Love your response, Hugh. Repped.

 

Mainman, the gamemaster is the boss of the game. If all else fails, he just says, "Yeah, whatever, dude. You can call this a 'house rule' if you want: HE CAN DETECT YOU!!!" Or just neglect to buy that -1/2 limitation on the radar, even though it makes logical sense.

[secretID]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

The problem is that common sense is not a frequently used sense in this case. The player wants this to work in his favor (for obvious reasons) and pg 126 (as ambiguous as it is) could go either way. As some of you have already said' date=' this makes no logical sense. [/size']

 

What I’m hoping for is some rule that transcends the “spirit”, which can shut down the absurdity of this argument. The problem is that I agree with all of you as do the two other players. I think we have used words that are harsher in discussing the matter.

"Neither the rules nor their expression is perfect. One of my jobs is to fill obvious holes and fix obvious errors; to the degree that this is one, consider it fixed."

 

I'm pretty sure that I'm far on the side of the spectrum in allowing discussion and debate over rulings, but I'm with many others here that you just shouldn't listen to any more of this nonsense. It doesn't even have to be harsh: "I heard you; I understand you. I've made my ruling; let's move on." If he wants to give one last monologue on the subject, listen with a smile on your face, and then move on. If he still won't drop it, drop him.

[Kenn]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Okay, maybe its just me, but maybe the fact that the radar operator isn't using sight to detect the character is the pertinent fact.

The radar operator is using sight to detect the little dot on the screen. The little dot is not the character. If someone were to hit the little dot on the screen, the character would not be affected.

Yes, the little dot represents the character. But by itself its meaningless. If someone without Systems Operations looked at the screen, it's just a dot. To interpret the dot on screen to a real location requires knowledge of how to use the machine.

[stevebob13]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Kenn touched upon the part of the rules debate that I believe makes the best illustration of the player's false logic.

 

Replace the radar dish with the amazing Radar Boy, and replace the dot with Radar Boy's finger. When Radar Boy, who can detect and target people invisible to the sight group, points at Invizodork does Radar Boy's hand vanish because it's now a visual representation of Invizodork? That's the argument you'd have to make to support the player's viewpoint.

 

At the core of the issue is the misinterpretation of the power limitation. The description leaves it moderately ambiguous as to what happens when a sense power is actually affected as mulitple sense groups. If the dish is vulnerable to radar and sight, then why wouldn't Radar Boy's hand be unable to point at Invizodork? Why? Because it's pretty clearly emplied by the two examples they give that one sense (Radar Group) is represented by the focus and the second sense (Sight Group) is the character's ability to make use of the focus. Both of which are required to use the power but are apples and oranges as far as sense affecting powers are concerned.

 

In my personal opinion I don't see why this would even be a limitation, outside of the limitation of already having a focus. The only thing I can think of is if you created a power such as Mental Power Sight, that was vulnerable to invisibility for both the Mental group and the Sight Group. However, I wouldn’t call this a limitation either, because it’s the other side to the double bladed sword of getting the sense modifiers from the sight group for free but having them vulnerable to the sight sense group. Or am I missing something?

[MilkmanDan]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

I'd actually allow that, but I'd require the player to buy his Invisibility Usable by Others, Simultaneously, Area of Effect . . . oh, throw a few more advantages in there. "Can you be invisible to every conceivable form of sight? Yes. Can you actually afford the points? No."

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Invisibility vs. Sight

 

Of course my first thought on reading your problem was to reach out and give that person a good clip over the ear.

 

And second. And third. And fourth.

 

For that matter, why stop at one good clip?