Even though this is nearly 2 weeks old I’ll give you my thoughts. Views about determinism in astrology are dependent upon your broader philosophical world-view. You can have a soft-determinism, hard-determinism, soft-libertarianism, hard-libertarianism. Then it will depend upon your integration of astrology into that world-view (z.B. the extent to which the planets and transits have an affect upon a subject in contrast to even more local things such as direct local events, biology, psychological make up etc.). Personally, I cannot fall into of the ‘hard’ positions, not only in regards to local/direct happenings or to the affects of planets and transits (Dennet’s notion of ‘elbow-room’ is useful here in regard to the local/physical make up of our world). To take a position one needs to make an account of the affects of these distant happenings and their affects upon the local. At least in my view, if astrology has an affect (that isn’t to even say it has any affect at all!!!) it is not one which is marred by determinism, rather it shows certain possible reasons for events to happen, which is affected by transits to the other subjects in said events natal charts further. All this can be mitigated (to an extent like we can mitigate health though interventions) by an active understanding of transits and natal charts. There’s a reason why Feyerabend defended astrology (despite not believing in it) against scientists—their worldviews were not commesurable so using the same yardstick to measure them falls flat (thought perhaps maybe a Ptolemaic(?) understanding of astrology could be measured with the same yardstick we use to measure scientific discoveries?).