Um, possibly needs clarification at some point in the future. Maybe the Line Editor will comment?
As far as I can see the intention of the rules is that for Aimed spells you discard the Attack Advantage, once you have established that the spell has 'hit'. You instead apply the effect of the spell as defined by the spell description.
I can, however, see that it is quite reasonable for the spell description itself to use the Attack Advantage to resolve some Aimed effects. The obvious one (for me) being where the Aimed spell is causing a collision between a target and an actual weapon. However, precisely what should be done to apply the spell effect, should be specified by the spell description itself. If the spell description doesn't mention using the Attack Advantage to resolve it's effect, then you shouldn't be.
I am not quoting to demonstrate, but to allow you to refer to the proper parts of the RAW.
HoH:S p 38 Invisible Sling of Vilano
"An aiming roll is required to hit the intended target, but if it succeeds, Magic Resistance offers no protection. The stone inflicts +5 damage on impact and has a range increment of 20 paces."
ArM5 p 116 "Many spells have damage listed in the form +X."
ArM5 p 181 "These rules are also used for calculating damage inflicted by spells."
ArM5 p 86 "what effect this has depends on the spell."
There is very little wiggle room to argue against a direct link between those rules. A - 116 defines the meaning of 38. B - the exact same formula is used in 116 and 181. C - both 116 and 181 state that this formula is used for spell damage {re-read 181, non-combat is a red herring}. D - 171 cannot be valid as it uses Strength. E - even the Aiming rule, while ambiguous, is not in opposition.
If there's another rule or example about spell damage that oppose 116 and 181, then the rules are incoherent and both interpretations are possible. But as is stands, the Attack Advantage interpretation does not fit the facts.
Let me just use this one piece to show you the logical error, then:
Credit cards can be used for identification purposes. Credit cards are also used to pay for things.
My two sentences perfectly parallel the 181 statements. There is a first part and then the "[these rules/credit cards] are also used [for calculating.../to pay...]."
Does this imply that to pay for things you must use credit cards? That is exactly the way you have interpreted the sentence from page 181, but I doubt you believe it in this case. But to accept your interpretation we must accept that you cannot pay for things in cash. So, in actuality, this sentence does not imply all spell damage should be calculated this way.
Chris
The part following this part, that +X represents stress die +X, would be a great argument. However, when looking at all the examples to which that refers, I can't find an Aimed version. Maybe I missed one. Now in HoH:S they bring in new guidelines, specifying these are different than the earlier ones. Unfortunately, they also use +X notation, which now gets confusing but not contradictory because they're not the old guidelines with their +X rules.
Personally, I like how the PeVi spells are written. They're very clear about where the stress die goes.
Chris
Perhaps that sentence, taken out of context, don't preclude the possibility that some spell damage is calculated some other way. But if it really meant that this was only one of several methods used to calculate spell damage, it would have said so.
And we would have been provided with this other secret method of spell damage calculation, rather than be forced to try to infere its existence somehow from what wasn't said.
The sentence after mentioning the "attack total" does IMHO speak for a binary result. It says:
[quote]
If the "attack" hits, the spell efefct is in the right place...[/]
But looking at the big picture, what does it really matter? Both methods use a stress die on both the attack/damage and the defence/soak side.
The Attack vs. Defence method just adds Per+Finesse on the Atk/Dam side and Qik+[Ability] on the Dfn/Soak side. If the former is higher than the latter, then this method is a boon to the attacker. Or vice versa.
The Spell Damage+Stress die vs. Soak+Stress die just ignores the potential differences there can be between attacker's and defender's skill.
I know the OP was about having a device with its own Finesse - ridicilously high was the idea - but since this isn't really a normal option per RAW, the situation isn't really relevant.
Boy is this insulting. I know perfectly well how I interpreted the sentence. The logical error is assuming I believe that. You must be tired if you latched on the wrong interpretation. Let me explain by a counter-example.
"Characters cannot use Supernatural Abilities unless they have at least one experience point in the Ability." Reading this, it seems pretty clear that having a score in Magic Theory or Enigmatic Wisdom won't allow you to use Second Sight, only a score in Second Sight will. Well, there's an exception for some Criamon using Enigmatic Wisdom in HoH:MC p 64, fine. But here you come and argue that you can use your Magic Theory score for Second Sight. Well can you really?
As I said:
Find me the exception, then you can say it's RAW.
- Can you, in RAW, find an exception to 116?
- Can you, in RAW, find an exception to 181?
- Can you find any logical reason why the Damage Total of 171 could apply when neither Strength nor Weapon Damage Modifier have anything to do with spell damage?
- Can you find any rule where no valid interpretation exists for it to be consistent with 116/181?
Those are the 4 points of weakness you have. Just the 3rd one is a killer.
In the real world, which we live in and have indescribably rich intuition about through direct experience, then of course they don't imply that credit cards are necessary to pay for things.
In a completely fictional world, where the sentences in its description are the only things whatsoever that we can use to understand the world, then I would indeed interpret those two sentences (and a lack of any other relevant sentences) as meaning that credit cards are necessary to pay for things.
What makes you believe it's not the same +X notation?
Why go against Occam's razor?
I think it does not include carry over. In page 86 of the main rulebook the aiming roll ends up being a yes/no answer. Either you hit because your attack passed over the defence total of the target, or you didn't hit at all. The text seems to imply that. Otherwise yes, a thrown stone can be the definitive dragon killer, sniper style
Cheers,
Xavi
It still can! In one of our sagas my Tremere has used Trapping the Fire in a large bonfire, and shot the small object at the Bad Guy using Sling of Vilano. The very meagre +5 damag plus a stress die ended up with a few 1's and Incapaciated the dude. And then the fire burst out! Aaand because someone had doused the entire place with oil first, there was an earthstattering kaboom!
But sure, it all depends on luck and only luck. With carry over and a huge Finesse things tens to get nasty a lot easier and more often.
Well if it's a normal "aiming roll" why tell us it's a attack total? Why just doesn't it say "the ease factor is the defense roll of the target?"
i see both points as valid.
In a game on this forum, I posted once this while preparing my Ramius/Sebastian flambeau...
"Normally combat use attack advantage, but sling of Vilano spell use a +damage spell. i'm unsure: if we have an attack advantage with an aimed spell, do we use:
- attack advantage + base damage only (as in mundane combat rules)
- if the aiming roll succeed, damage (base + roll) (using only spell damage rules)
- attack advantage + damage (base + roll) (combining both aiming is an attack total + spell damage)"
If solution 3 is out of rules, both solutions 1 & 2 are possible.
And both of them include the "little peebe kill dragon" thing, since the die is stress roll in both case.
However, since in solution 2, the aiming roll is a trigger for damage, it's average lower than solution 1, which, if it touches, include a (attack advantage bonus), which can be powerful if the character is build around the concept of finesse (mastery of precise casting in great number, good finesse and perception).
But I see each of them as valid, and only troupe decision to decide, since the rules provide no exclusive answer to the issue.
Everything in the ArM mechanics which use a Stress die can potentially end with this. For both Attack, Damage, Defence or Soak. A "Finger of the tiny Candle" CrIg doing even +0 damage could with enough 1's kill a humongeous, giant dragon. As well as a falling Rock of Gibaltar could fail to even be felt by an ant. Such is the way the dice roll!
THe aiming rules state explicitly that you can buy bonuses of +6 to your aiming roll per extra magnitude in the spell. So you can get quite massive Aiming help there. The example implies that you do that using big spells (a hole the size of a church) but do not forbid using it to aim a killer pebble to slay dragonkin. So, if you allow aiming to be part of damage you can kill almost anyone and anything carrying a bag of stones and a maxed out spell. You can have the effect work with almost all forms that have solidity. Versions with animal fangs, human bones, chunks of wood,... also work
Xavi
Xavi, I don"'t read that part like that:
"if the direct target of the spell is a basic individual for the form in question (see page 112-, there is no bonus to the aiming roll. For every step larger, and thus, for every magnitude added to the spell, the aiming roll gets a +6 bonus. It is hard to miss a single person when you create a pit the size of a church.".
For me it means:
basic individual = +0 bonus
every size increase (which, by consequence mean every +1 magnitude for spell) = +6 bonus.
But the target individual still needs to be increased!
No way to have a +36 bonus by adding 6 magnitudes on a peebe. But on a hill, yes, of course.
Books at home. You might be right 
So, it is easier to aim a diamond the size of your fist than a stone of the same size. Interesting. 
Xavi
No - the aiming bonus is for relevant size advantage not for increasing the magnitude of the spell - it even says explicitly that upping the size of a base gem tenfold won't make it any easier to hit with it. The context is the placing of area effects so that they include the intended victim and, since to get the bonus the attack must be somewhat larger than the target, I'd resolve the damage as environmental/magic - the only effective active defense is a dodge and if that fails the margin doesn't matter.
Weapon scale attacks that require targeting rolls and allow combat defense should have combat advantage in the damage. The only way I know to up the finesse score is with the precision mastery which cannot be added to an item.
::Using booming-from-on-high voice::
The intent was for carry over and attack advantage to not apply to spells. The Aiming roll is supposed to be just hit or miss.
Play it how you want, but that's the author's intent.
gotcha!