From how far away can you hit someone with an evocation?

[exploding_brain]

But lenses are centuries old, and in this example, if I'm understanding it right, the fiber optic cable is basically working like a lens.  It basically glass bending the path of light, I believe, so it might be resistant to hexing the same way lenses are.  Anyway, I think the idea is that there's no electronics involved, which is the most vulnerable sort of technology.  Everything is either mechanical, or light being bent by interaction with physical materials.

[Deadmanwalking]

But lenses are centuries old, and in this example, if I'm understanding it right, the fiber optic cable is basically working like a lens.  It basically glass bending the path of light, I believe, so it might be resistant to hexing the same way lenses are.  Anyway, I think the idea is that there's no electronics involved, which is the most vulnerable sort of technology.  Everything is either mechanical, or light being bent by interaction with physical materials.

It's not about how it's being used, it's about it being new. Clearly, the magic making things not work doesn't give a damn about logic or guns would be immune. They aren't. It's a conceptual, not logical process. Is it new? Yes. Well then it fails.

[Biff Dyskolos]

But lenses are centuries old, and in this example, if I'm understanding it right, the fiber optic cable is basically working like a lens.  It basically glass bending the path of light, I believe, so it might be resistant to hexing the same way lenses are.  Anyway, I think the idea is that there's no electronics involved, which is the most vulnerable sort of technology.  Everything is either mechanical, or light being bent by interaction with physical materials.

Actually, a fiber optic cable works like a mirror, not a lens. The fiber is a pipe and the light bounces of the inside of the outer surface of that pipe - like an infinite series of mirrors.

With a lens you are still looking directly at your target. When you you use mirrors you are looking at it indirectly. An evocation needs to follow a straight line to the target. Anything else is thaumaturgy.

[Biff Dyskolos]

It's not about how it's being used, it's about it being new. Clearly, the magic making things not work doesn't give a damn about logic or guns would be immune. They aren't. It's a conceptual, not logical process. Is it new? Yes. Well then it fails.

Hmmm. Old things are now made of new material. Earlier, you mentioned a evocation sniper with a telescope. If the lenses of the  telescope are glass then it's okay? If they are made of Lexan then it's not?

[exploding_brain]

It's not about how it's being used, it's about it being new. Clearly, the magic making things not work doesn't give a damn about logic or guns would be immune. They aren't. It's a conceptual, not logical process. Is it new? Yes. Well then it fails.

If that's what's fun for your group, sure, that works.

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmmm. Old things are now made of new material. Earlier, you mentioned a evocation sniper with a telescope. If the lenses of the  telescope are glass then it's okay? If they are made of Lexan then it's not?

Hmmm. Like a knife made of plastic there's nothing to go wrong there, so I think it'd be okay. Fiber optics have more to go wrong, if only by virtue of being a long and relatively fragile cable.

If that's what's fun for your group, sure, that works.

That's actually the tack taken by the RPG in general. See p. 258.

[Biff Dyskolos]

Fiber optics have more to go wrong, if only by virtue of being a long and relatively fragile cable.

Actually, fiber optics are pretty darn simple and they are fairly rugged. Not that I like the whole evocation down a pipe direction tis topic has turned to.

I would disallow fiber optics on the bases that it is an indirect attack. Evocations don't turn corners - thats thaumaturgy. Also, forcing power down that fiber would burn it out - no hexing involved. Just like trying to bounce a Weapon:5 evocation off a mirror would break the mirror.

And I think the telescope idea is out because of the

Inherent Limitations

(YS:250) that requires a "more permanent construct" (thaumaturgy) for spells beyond a "certain distance."

[neko128]

The fibre-optic cables and fish-eye lenses. Instantly. Anything electronic goes boom/fizzle almost immediately, and more importantly it's how new and advanced the technology is that makes it screw up. The newer, the easier and quicker it gets screwed up. Or are you going to tell me fibre optics aren't advanced technology?

I am, actually.  The mistake you're making is the "electronic" bit - I specifically excluded electronic elements.  Fibre optics are nothing more than pieces of transparent or translucent material that transmit light - like windows.  The reason most people consider them high-tech is because the almost exclusive use in the current day and age is digital data transmission - which is done by firing lasers or LED flashes down fibre optic channels, and interpreting the digital data at the far end...  But that's the actions of a computer.  Fibre optics do nothing but carry light.

Similarly, a lense is nothing more than lump of glass or plastic that reflects light.  Again, like a thick or curved window.

To screw up the fibre optics and fisheye lenses, you would have to change the behavior of light, and I have seen no precedent to believe that magic can do that (at least when it isn't intentional).

[neko128]

It's not about how it's being used, it's about it being new. Clearly, the magic making things not work doesn't give a damn about logic or guns would be immune. They aren't. It's a conceptual, not logical process. Is it new? Yes. Well then it fails.

Guns are subject to mechanical failures on small parts that are manufactured to fairly high tolerances. 

[Rel Fexive]

Of course, if there's a wall between you and your target, I don't care what you're using to see him - if you're casting your spell from inside a locked room expect property damage and a target running away fast when he hears the bang.  It's not just the 'targeting' that's line of sight with evocation.  And without a symbolic component would thaumaturgy be able to target someone you can only see?

[Deadmanwalking]

I am, actually.  The mistake you're making is the "electronic" bit - I specifically excluded electronic elements. Fibre optics are nothing more than pieces of transparent or translucent material that transmit light - like windows.  The reason most people consider them high-tech is because the almost exclusive use in the current day and age is digital data transmission - which is done by firing lasers or LED flashes down fibre optic channels, and interpreting the digital data at the far end...  But that's the actions of a computer.  Fibre optics do nothing but carry light.

Similarly, a lense is nothing more than lump of glass or plastic that reflects light.  Again, like a thick or curved window.

To screw up the fibre optics and fisheye lenses, you would have to change the behavior of light, and I have seen no precedent to believe that magic can do that (at least when it isn't intentional).

Looking up fiber optics you're quite right.

Also, having looked up fiber optics, biff_dyskolos is also quite right. They behave like mirrors more than lenses, and I would not allow someone to use Evocation through a mirror, so that ruling would stand for fiber optics.

[neko128]

You say "through" a mirror.  Do you mean you wouldn't let someone cast at someone behind the mirror, or someone who's reflected in it?  I wouldn't let someone cast through fibre optics either (for different reasons), but I *would* let someone cast at a reflection.

[Rel Fexive]

Bear in mind that if you see someone behind you in a mirror and cast an evocation at them, you just need to point/gesture behind you and you'll (probably) be able to hit them - they could always use a, ah, MIRROR SHOT aspect for a bonus to their defence.  But if they were around a corner, and a barrier of some kind blocked the direct route from you to your target, then your spell would hit that barrier.  No bending a spell around corners, in other words.  You could, I guess, stick your hand around the corner and 'fire' but again, the defender would get to use an aspect like BAD ANGLE or some such to help them.

That's how I'd do it, anyway.

[Deadmanwalking]

You say "through" a mirror.  Do you mean you wouldn't let someone cast at someone behind the mirror, or someone who's reflected in it?  I wouldn't let someone cast through fibre optics either (for different reasons), but I *would* let someone cast at a reflection.

I meant I wouldn't let someone cast it directly at a reflection and let it effect the person whose reflection it is.

Something like what Rel Fexive is talking about I'd allow, though.

[neko128]

I guess my concern is, to lay it out, the difference in definition of "Line of Sight".  The rules say you can only target things that you see without "scrying or other effects", but the reasoning it gives is the problem of concentration, not necessarily reach.

A lot of the comments here feel like the assumption is that any evocation must be sourcing from the Wizard in question, but I see no reason to assume that this is true.  Harry himself focuses on effects that focus on him and either shield him or radiate out (blasts of fire and air being popular ones), but there are other examples where this isn't true.  The rules use an example (page 253, I think?) where someone causes strong winds to rise in the area, but the winds are independent of the wizard (they're near him, but not radiating from or directed towards him), and in fact it's implied that their effect is not limited by LOS to the wizard either - that the effect is an area, obstacles notwithstanding.

Similarly, under the discussion of elements and air vs. earth for calling lightning, it talks about summoning lightning down from the sky to hit a target.  The wizard is the source of the magic, but neither the source nor target of the effect.

And the last example I'll throw out is from Storm Front.  In Chapter 22, Harry causes

(click to show/hide)

a massive wind gust to form underneath the elevator, forcing it up and crushing the scorpion construct.  It could have been framed as a spirit spell just pushing the elevator up, but instead it was framed as wind

- and the source, cause, and effect all happened outside his vision.

I'm just afraid people are getting too attached to "direct vision" as the definition of effect for evocation, because we have multiple examples - in the books and rules - where it isn't the standard used to define "Line of Sight"...  And the reasoning written behind the LoS comment doesn't mention vision at all.

So to get back to the thread...

...you just need to point/gesture behind you and you'll (probably) be able to hit them - they could always use a, ah, MIRROR SHOT aspect for a bonus to their defence...

This is exactly my point.  Yes, if you're aiming in a mirror to "point and shoot", you're effectively firing a gun, and it'd be appropriate.  But am I simply missing the requirement to "aim" in this sense?  It may make sense based on the character concept, but from my reading of the rules it isn't appropriate to all Evocation, or even *much* Evocation.  The rules say the discipline roll also counts as your attack roll (that they can defend against), but it doesn't say it's literally a ranged attack - and that interpretation is directly contradicted by the discussion slightly further down of, for example, summoning a lightning bolt from the sky.  Sure, it's dodgeable, and if not dodged the damage is resistible, but it's not being aimed in the way you're talking.  It's being guided, and that's different.  Even if my PC were targeting the lightning bolt in a mirror, I wouldn't be able to justify a defensive aspect like that.  Now, an "insulated" aspect because they were in a car (rubber tires FTW!) or a "grounded" aspect because they're standing in a puddle of water or clutching a metal fire escape...

Anyway, sorry, rant done.