Visible Warrior Invisible Sword

[Eric Funk]

Greetings GURPS Forums

Is there any precedent for foes' defense rolls being penalised against an invisible sword wielded by a normal opacity foe (ideally GURPS 4e)? (to the extreme, should not a 3-yard invisible polearm should impose /some/ penalty to user's defense?) This is in context of GURPS Magic 4e "Invisiblity" p. M114...


I) BASIC indicates explicitly if both the foe and weapon are invisible defenders roll at -4. (B394)


II Toward the opposite case (invisible warrior, visible sword):
With a visible warrior wielding a sword, someone striking /at/ the weapon: striking at a broadsword is -4 (B400)

M63 -5 to strike /at/ a broadsword... wielded "As if by an invisible foe"

So more or less -1 if the wielder is invisible (I suppose you could read from the wielder where it is going next).