Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Stefan Hahn <HAHN@***.EDU>
Subject:	anchoring
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 1993 12:26:46 -0700

Message no. 1 Request for a rules clarification:
If Reg has a Spark spell, and wants to anchor it to his Weapon Focus 2,
so that the Spark goes off whenever he hits someone with it, would he need to
use an activation link to turn the spark on followed by a nearly-immediately
following deactivation link afterwards (because I'm damned if I'm going to
sustain the bloody thing all the time) or will the normal anchoring suffice?
Please note that this has a damage output of (STR + 4)D. Ouch. Puts
mages right up there with Physads, once they've initiated...
____
--+=={ \ / }==+--
\/
"Violence is the last "Just how competent can you be
refuge of the incompetent" With a stiletto in your back?
--Salvor Hardin, --Blindside,
Mayor of Terminus Shaman of Coyote

HAHN@***.EDU
____
--+=={ \ / }==+--
\/

From:	The Reverend <MDB0213@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: anchoring
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 1993 14:56:32 -0500

Message no. 2 ]Request for a rules clarification:
] If Reg has a Spark spell, and wants to anchor it to his Weapon Focus 2,
]so that the Spark goes off whenever he hits someone with it, would he need to
]use an activation link to turn the spark on followed by a nearly-immediately
]following deactivation link afterwards

Just one thing, and since I don't play a mage I know not whether it matters:
Spark is NOT sustained. It's instant, as Tom once stated in one of our many
Q/A sessions.

Rev
---
The Reverend "They called me the Reverend when I entered the church unstained"
Fear the Information Revolution...for it has reached the hands of the strange.
PGP 2.2 Public Key Block available upon request

From:	Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: anchoring
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 1993 18:04:05 -0500

Message no. 3 >Request for a rules clarification:
> If Reg has a Spark spell, and wants to anchor it to his Weapon Focus 2,
>so that the Spark goes off whenever he hits someone with it, would he need to
>use an activation link to turn the spark on followed by a nearly-immediately
>following deactivation link afterwards (because I'm damned if I'm going to
>sustain the bloody thing all the time) or will the normal anchoring suffice?

You won't need a deactivation link. On the down side, as this isn't a
sustained spell (but rather an instant spell), once it has its instant effect,
it won't go off again until you recast the spell. If you were to use a
sustained spell instead, you would need activation and temporal links (unless
you wanted to sustain it yourself); a deactivation link would still be optional,
but if you didn't have one, the spell would stay on until it burned itself out
at the end of the temporal link's duration.

Any clearer now?

esper@***.umn.edu

From:	"Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject:	Anchoring
Date:	Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:30:14 GMT

Message no. 4 Robert Watkins writes
>
> Not quite... yeah, you can anchor an Instant duration spell... but it's a
> once-off. As soon as it's triggered, the spell energy dissapates, and all
> you'd have left is a detect person anchor.
However you only need recast the spell to set it up again, the karma
cost is once off.

> And in the case of something
> like Flame Bomb, odds are the anchoring item is destroyed as well. What a
> waste of Karma.
>
Very much so. Anchoring is only balanced because all the really nasty
tricks it can do cost so much karma its unreal. There are some uses
however.

Mark

From:	Jeffrey Riordan <JRIORDAN@***.gov>
Subject:	Anchoring -Reply
Date:	Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:39:35 -0400

Message no. 5 >> Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
09/16/96 09:30am >>>
Robert Watkins writes
> > Not quite... yeah, you can anchor an Instant
duration spell... but it's a > once-off. As soon as it's
triggered, the spell energy dissapates, and all >
you'd have left is a detect person anchor.
However you only need recast the spell to set it up
again, the karma cost is once off.

> And in the case of something > like Flame Bomb,
odds are the anchoring item is destroyed as well.
What a > waste of Karma.
> Very much so. Anchoring is only balanced because
all the really nasty tricks it can do cost so much
karma its unreal. There are some uses however.

Mark
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Actually the most creative way I've used anchoring
is by placing Flame shield in an amulet with the
trigger of a mental command by the wearer. Gave it to
a physical adept and that's how he would go into
combat one on one with folks. The radius was set at 4
meters (it was a force 8 spell) and all the spell dice
were with held. There was the additional link of
sustaining it for a total of 4 minutes.
Made a neat device that allowed the PA to close with
an opponent, turn it on (willpower test TN4), then fight
HTH with them while block line of sight spells and
adding the +8 blindfire mod for gunshot. Also tended
to keep the opponent's friends out for a while too.
The PA could turn it on and off as long as the total
time on (cumulative that is) was less than 4 minutes.
All he has to do now is go back to the mage and have
it recast. The PA is an Aztalan Bodyguard who
believes in single combat and found his opponents
often didn't.

From:	"Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring -Reply
Date:	Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:52:52 GMT

Message no. 6 Jeffrey Riordan writes

> > Very much so. Anchoring is only balanced because
> all the really nasty tricks it can do cost so much
> karma its unreal. There are some uses however.
>
> Mark
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Actually the most creative way I've used anchoring
> is by placing Flame shield in an amulet with the
> trigger of a mental command by the wearer. Gave it to
> a physical adept and that's how he would go into
> combat one on one with folks. The radius was set at 4
> meters (it was a force 8 spell) and all the spell dice
> were with held. There was the additional link of
> sustaining it for a total of 4 minutes.
Base radius is based on the casters magic attribute, i assume 8 in
this case. (just checking) you are correct that dice witheld is
limited to spell force.

> Made a neat device that allowed the PA to close with
> an opponent, turn it on (willpower test TN4), then fight
> HTH with them while block line of sight spells and
> adding the +8 blindfire mod for gunshot. Also tended
> to keep the opponent's friends out for a while too.
very neat, the only thing i would say is that 8M accross is pretty
big, you would do even better finding a grade 0 mage with the spell
to make it 2M radius unless you take to combats in large areas.
(although i agree a 2m radius dome is close confines, if your opponent
contacts the dome well bonus damage)

> The PA could turn it on and off as long as the total
> time on (cumulative that is) was less than 4 minutes.
> All he has to do now is go back to the mage and have
> it recast. The PA is an Aztalan Bodyguard who
> believes in single combat and found his opponents
> often didn't.
>
very handy.
>

The principal one i noted, but have not yet used (NPC's got banned
from doing it to stop players copying the idea) was an area effect
cone spell, force 2+2+2 (fetish exlusive, read the latter carefully
and it only excludes use with other spells not metamagic :) ),
activation link for 1 karma.
Cost 3 karma and you have a '1 shot' magical gun that fires for a
simple action, keep it wrapped up till you need it and noone can see
it to ground through it. Put one mana and one physical spell on the
same object and ask the initaiate to please split his shielding
between body and willpower!, even better mundanes can fire the thing.
Do however be careful that the spell you use does not damage the item
you cast it on to allow reuse.
With the sustaining link you can use it for sustained spells,
thinking of your physad flame aura out of awakenings would be fun
(probably not for that mindset, its cheating but)
Another advantage of anchoring spells is you do the actual casting
out of combat, sleep off the drain and don't have to worry about
saving dice for defence.

Mark

From:	Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Anchoring
Date:	Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:09:00 -0500

Message no. 7 Just to clarify, when I anchor a sustained manipulation spell to a
melee weapon, like a sword, the spell affects only the blade, right? In
other words, a character can wield the magically enhanced weapon without
burning his fingers, right?

Peace and Long Life,

Scott

From:	Peter Leitch <pleitch_hpcs@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:36:19 +1100

Message no. 8 At 23:09 2/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
> Just to clarify, when I anchor a sustained manipulation spell to a
>melee weapon, like a sword, the spell affects only the blade, right? In
>other words, a character can wield the magically enhanced weapon without
>burning his fingers, right?
>
>Peace and Long Life,

Well, if my astral mage gets to you with an anchored spell on your blade,
you WON'T have peace or a long life. Ground a spell through the anchoring,
and <BANG> you're toast <grin>.

Seriously, it depends what spell you use. If it's something like Flame
Burst, or Flamethrower, then the flame is physical, the blade will get hot
and lose its temper, and anyone who picks it up will burn themselves.
However, Flame Aura is okay, because it doesn't harm the target of the
spell (page 140 Awakenings).
PML

***************************************
Peter Leitch
<pleitch_hpcs@*******.com.au>
Canberra, Australia

From:	Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 3 Nov 1996 21:18:30 -0500

Message no. 9 At 06:36 PM 11/3/96 +1100, you wrote:
<SNIP Anchoring question>

>Well, if my astral mage gets to you with an anchored spell on your blade,
>you WON'T have peace or a long life. Ground a spell through the anchoring,
>and <BANG> you're toast <grin>.
That's why I always go w/ astral back-up. <g>
Besides, I'm talking about a sustained spell. As it says in the
Grimoire, sustained spells, if attacked and defeated in astral space, just
vent their energies peacefully.

>Seriously, it depends what spell you use. If it's something like Flame
>Burst, or Flamethrower, then the flame is physical, the blade will get hot
>and lose its temper, and anyone who picks it up will burn themselves.
Also, there'd be no pint in anchoring an instant spell to a blade,
anywise.

Peace and Long Life,

Scott

From:	Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:	Anchoring
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:52:28 -0500

Message no. 10 Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?

Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?

Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?

What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the archored
object can always act as a material like back to the magician?

From:	Timothy P Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:30:02 -0800

Message no. 11 >
> Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?

I've done a little along the way to creating "magic weapons" that the PC's found
on some long and ardurous trek through the wilderness.

> Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
> decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?
>
> Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?
>
> What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the archored
> object can always act as a material like back to the magician?

In some cases...the object won't survive the activation of the anchored spell...
Like, oh say that time delayed, Detect Person-triggered Flame Bomb...

If your creative they can be very useful. (note, the above are not
characteristic of "creative" uses...just ones I remembered using)

~Tim

From:	Sanction <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:15:40 -0500

Message no. 12 At 12:52 PM 12/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?

I've used anchoring in a somewhat limited way. I've used it instead of
spell locks or quickening because it has the advantage that it can be turned
off/wiped out without the loss of the invested karma. That means, the way
my character used it, you can creep around without drawing any astral
attention at all (simple a necklace in a pocket with some resonance to the
mage), get where you are going, and then cast the spell you want a duration
for -- in my case increase reflexes. I'm not sure this is kosher, but it
was allowed by the GM, so...

>Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
>decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?

Not as far as I know.

>Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?

Definitely different. Foci are magical items, anchored objects are normal
items that have been invested with the power (life force/karma) to hold
spells in them for a limited time.
>
>What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the archored
>object can always act as a material like back to the magician?

I'm not sure what you mean, if you turn the anchored object off or kill the
spell yourself, there is basically nolonger anything special about the item
at all except you can later use it to anchor with paying more karma, and if
found, it can be used as a link -- much as a favorite (mundane) object can
be from the Grimmy's voudou type ritual socercery rules.

--Sanction

From:	John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:05:21 EST

Message no. 13 On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:52:28 -0500 Midn Daniel O Fredrikson
<m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes:
>Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?
Not me, haven't had the chance, yet.
>Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
>decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?
You don't bond an anchoring focus (by the book, that is...it's created
like a fetish, and is used only to reduce the target number for
anchoring)
>Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?
They're different...I think....I know that anyone (even a mundane) can
use an anchored spell (but only the spell-tossers can cast them), but
only a magician can make use of a spell lock...
>What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the
>archored
>object can always act as a material like back to the magician?
>
Depends what you're being pusued by:) If all the pursuant wanted was to
get the anchored spell (and either doesn't care or can't perform ritual
sorcery:), then you're safe-if it was an enemy mage, thenyou're probably
in deeper stuff now than you were to begin with:)

John Pederson "God is dead"
lobo1@****.com -Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 to
1900)
I don't know where my home page is! "Nietzsche is dead"
Only dead fish swim with the stream -God (everlasting to everlasting)

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:16:27 GMT

Message no. 14 Midn Daniel O Fredrikson writes

> Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?
>
Somewhat, the delayed blast flamebombs and the like are two expensive
but items with aimed spells on them (use like wand), damaging manips
on melee weapons and defensve items are pretty good. You can get
quite a bit for 3-4 kamra, just ensure you end up with the item
afterwards so you can re-use it or it gets stupidly expensive very
very fast.

> Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
> decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?
>
No, and its not a fcous its an enchanted item, different.

> Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?
>
different.

> What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the archored
> object can always act as a material like back to the magician?
>
Not a lot, it also looses the item and hence all the karma you spent
on it. If this wasn't expensive Anchoring would allow in SR all those
obscene tricks you thought you safely left behind in **&*.

Mark

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:25:55 +0000

Message no. 15 On 4 Dec 96 at 12:52, Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:
> Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
> decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?
Nope. You decrease the Karma Cost for first bonding by using Arkana and/or
Orichalcum. And since the anchors are not bonded, you can't decrease Karma
cost AFAIK.

> Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?
Mundane objects with spells attached to them. I suppose you _can_ ground
through them (*seeking asbestos suit*) but they are no foci. if the spells to
the anchor are "used", there shouldn't be an astral trace left (at least no to
ground through) (*wearing asbestos helmet*)

> What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the archored
> object can always act as a material like back to the magician?
The anchoring itself is not bound to a person/magician. So if you make sure
the spells go off and are used up, there is nothing left to send a ritual
through. Well, if the spells are still active or not yet activated... Uh-oh.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

From:	Sanction <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:35:09 -0500

Message no. 16 >
>> What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the archored
>> object can always act as a material like back to the magician?
>The anchoring itself is not bound to a person/magician. So if you make sure
>the spells go off and are used up, there is nothing left to send a ritual
>through. Well, if the spells are still active or not yet activated... Uh-oh.
>
I'll stay away from the grounding because that is a scary issue, and I don't
remember what the books say about that, but I'm positive that an anchored
object CAN be used as a ritual link to the creator because there is
something "left to send a ritual through." The karma that goes into the
object to prepare it is not lost even if the spells are used up. That
object has still been prepared for use by that one mage, and as such, is
linked to him. This means that there is a connection that can be expoited
as the basis for a sending in ritual sorcery.

--Sanction

From:	Brian W Allison <ballison@*******.WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:19:04 -0500

Message no. 17 On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Sanction wrote:

> I'll stay away from the grounding because that is a scary issue, and I don't
> remember what the books say about that, but I'm positive that an anchored
> object CAN be used as a ritual link to the creator because there is

GrimII, p 50, shows how an Anchoring can be used against the people in
its area.

However, the Anchoring section doesn't say if it's Groundable.

IMO, the spell is attached, but there's no physical component even
though the item has been declared as the location of the spell. Since
there's no physical component, there's no duality. Ergo, not Groundable.

YMMV

Brian W. Allison

Computer Scientist Vocalist Would-be Poet Bicycler Scuba Diver
Hacker(0xca) Nerd(79) GenX(21) #include <witticism.h>
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ballison

--- Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail is not welcome at this account ---
--- and will result in a US$500 fee per US Code Title 47 Sec 227. ---

From:	Graht <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:27:08 -0700

Message no. 18 Someone wrote:

> >Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?
> Not me, haven't had the chance, yet.
> >Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it be
> >decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?
> You don't bond an anchoring focus (by the book, that is...it's created
> like a fetish, and is used only to reduce the target number for
> anchoring)
> >Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?
> They're different...I think....I know that anyone (even a mundane) can
> use an anchored spell (but only the spell-tossers can cast them), but
> only a magician can make use of a spell lock...
> >What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the
> >archored
> >object can always act as a material like back to the magician?

Could the persons who reply with the above format please separate
your replies from quoted material with blank lines? Like so:

> >Has anyone actually used anchoring to any extent? If so, how?

> Not me, haven't had the chance, yet.

> >Can the karma cost for an anchoring foci or what ever you call it
> >be decreased by the use of more oracharium like other foci can?

> You don't bond an anchoring focus (by the book, that is...it's
> created like a fetish, and is used only to reduce the target number
> for anchoring)

> >Are anchored objects foci's or are they somehow different?

> They're different...I think....I know that anyone (even a mundane)
> can use an anchored spell (but only the spell-tossers can cast
> them), but only a magician can make use of a spell lock...

> >What good is dropping an archored object to stop pursuit if the
> >archored object can always act as a material like back to the
> >magician?

It would make it much easier to read your posts.

Thanks.

-Graht

"Pick up the door."
"...Hey, Kunds!"

From:	Chris <chris_hayes@*******.COM>
Subject:	Anchoring...
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:14:12 -0700

Message no. 19 Quick questions:

How long does an anchoring last? Does it only work once? Do you use it
once, and then have to reanchor? Can it use a word to activate?

Example: Can someone anchor the Death Touch spell to a sword? And then
activate it with a word?

Christopher Hayes
"Who put their hoo-hoo dilly in your cha-cha?" - Cartman

From:	Johan Felt <is97jfa@*******.HK-R.SE>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:49:49 +0200

Message no. 20 Quick awnsers:
Yes and .... eeeh, yes.

// Johan

From:	Johan Felt <is97jfa@*******.HK-R.SE>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:55:39 +0200

Message no. 21 > How long does an anchoring last? Does it only work once? Do you use it
> once, and then have to reanchor? Can it use a word to activate?

Ok, I know. I send it to soon. Here is the awnser to the other question:

Then anchoring is set on an object or a place it's permanent and will last until
it's dispelled. How you activate it is up to the caster (it's decided during the
creation of the anchor. You can read more at page 47-50 in The Grimoire 2ed.

// And again: I'm sorry for the two postings on the same question.

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:05:29 EDT

Message no. 22 In a message dated 4/22/98 2:14:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
chris_hayes@*******.COM writes:

> How long does an anchoring last? Does it only work once? Do you use it
> once, and then have to reanchor? Can it use a word to activate?

Answering each question in order...

Depends on the design.
Depends on the design.
Depends on the design.
Depends on the design.

> Example: Can someone anchor the Death Touch spell to a sword? And then
> activate it with a word?

As per the rules in the Grimoire II, YES. However, Death Touch on a damaging
objects always seemed a bit "overzealous" IMO.

-K

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:08:13 +1000

Message no. 23 Johan Felt writes:
>> How long does an anchoring last? Does it only work once? Do you use
it
>> once, and then have to reanchor? Can it use a word to activate?
>
>Ok, I know. I send it to soon. Here is the awnser to the other question:
>
>Then anchoring is set on an object or a place it's permanent and will last
until
>it's dispelled. How you activate it is up to the caster (it's decided
during the
>creation of the anchor. You can read more at page 47-50 in The Grimoire
2ed.

Not quite... an inactive anchor (one that's not currently firing off a
spell) will last forever (I think... might be wrong) until it's activated by
whatever was the chosen activation method.

If it is an Instantaneous spell (eg, if it was a Fire Bomb, say), it can
only be used once, and then re-anchored (assuming the anchor item survived).

For sustained spells, there's a temporal component to the anchor design,
which adds to the complexity of the anchor. Say it's designed to last 10
minutes. It gets activated, 3 minutes later it's de-activated, it's now get
7 minutes of life left. Once those 10 minutes are fully used, it needs to be
re-anchored.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:10:20 +1000

Message no. 24 Ereskanti writes:
>> Example: Can someone anchor the Death Touch spell to a sword? And
then
>> activate it with a word?
>
>As per the rules in the Grimoire II, YES. However, Death Touch on a
damaging
>objects always seemed a bit "overzealous" IMO.

Don't know why... being a combat spell, the target would have been
identified at casting time, and so you'll have a really cool sword, that
will be really cool against one person.

Put Spark onto it, much more fun. Or a Flame Aura.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com

From:	"Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:12:14 -0700

Message no. 25 ----------
> From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Anchoring...
> Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 4:05 PM
>
<snip>
>
> As per the rules in the Grimoire II, YES. However, Death Touch on a
damaging
> objects always seemed a bit "overzealous" IMO.
>

Overzealous has no meaning to me as long as the guy you're swinging the
sword at can soak. Especially if it's a troll. Or a dragon. =)

From:	Johan Felt <is97jfa@*******.HK-R.SE>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:04:42 +0200

Message no. 26 > For sustained spells, there's a temporal component to the anchor design,
> which adds to the complexity of the anchor. Say it's designed to last 10
> minutes. It gets activated, 3 minutes later it's de-activated, it's now get
> 7 minutes of life left. Once those 10 minutes are fully used, it needs to be
> re-anchored.

Ok, does this means that after the activation of the anchor (and the decided
Temporal Link is used) you have to pay more karma again or does it work as with
spell locks (you can use it again and again and.....).
At p.49, under Temperal Link, The Grimoire 2ed:
"At the end of the designated time, the detection spell dropsand the entire
anchored spell's structure unravels."

From:	Quicksilver <qwksilvr@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:45:03 -0500

Message no. 27 At 12:14 PM 4/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
> Quick questions:
>
> How long does an anchoring last? Does it only work once? Do you use it
>once, and then have to reanchor? Can it use a word to activate?

yeppers.

> Example: Can someone anchor the Death Touch spell to a sword? And then
>activate it with a word?

I think that maybe it would affect the person holding the sword/speaking
the word. Ouch. Mean trick. Etch the word in the side of the blade :).

Hg

Warning: This message contains my opinions.
I've been wrong before....
....I'll be wrong again.

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:25:10 +1000

Message no. 28 Johan Felt writes:

>> For sustained spells, there's a temporal component to the anchor design,
>> which adds to the complexity of the anchor. Say it's designed to last 10
>> minutes. It gets activated, 3 minutes later it's de-activated, it's now
get
>> 7 minutes of life left. Once those 10 minutes are fully used, it needs to
be
>> re-anchored.
>
>Ok, does this means that after the activation of the anchor (and the
decided
>Temporal Link is used) you have to pay more karma again or does it work as
with
>spell locks (you can use it again and again and.....).
>At p.49, under Temperal Link, The Grimoire 2ed:
>"At the end of the designated time, the detection spell dropsand the entire
>anchored spell's structure unravels."

If you still have time left, you can use it again. So you could use the 10
minute link above three times, for three minutes each, and one more time for
one minute (at the end of which the spell would fall).

After the temporal link period is up, you still have a valid anchor object,
but you need to re-anchor the spell.

--
sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:36:44 +1200

Message no. 29 Quoth Quicksilver (1245 23-4-98):

<<SLICE>>
> Example: Can someone anchor the Death Touch spell to a
sword? And then
>activate it with a word?

I think that maybe it would affect the person holding
the sword/speaking
the word. Ouch. Mean trick. Etch the word in the side of the
blade :).

That's sick, devious, and downright nasty, Quick. I wish I'd thought of
it first :-).

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:39:15 +0100

Message no. 30 And verily, did Robert Watkins hastily scribble thusly...
|For sustained spells, there's a temporal component to the anchor design,
|which adds to the complexity of the anchor. Say it's designed to last 10
|minutes. It gets activated, 3 minutes later it's de-activated, it's now get
|7 minutes of life left. Once those 10 minutes are fully used, it needs to be
|re-anchored.

Now this leads to an interesting point...
Conservation of activation time.
The best design I can think of for a sword with a sustained damaging
manipulation would be to have an activation trigger that causes the spell to
turn on on impact, a time trigger to turn it off say.... a 1/2 second later
and a temporal link.

So in effect, the sword is only active for a fraction of a second during the
actual strike of the weapon, meaning it could last quite a long time before
needing a "recharge".
Comments?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |

From:	Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 06:23:37 PDT

Message no. 31 Spike wrote
>
>And verily, did Robert Watkins hastily scribble thusly...
>|For sustained spells, there's a temporal component to the anchor
design,
>|which adds to the complexity of the anchor. Say it's designed to last
10
>|minutes. It gets activated, 3 minutes later it's de-activated, it's
now get
>|7 minutes of life left. Once those 10 minutes are fully used, it needs
to be
>|re-anchored.
>
>Now this leads to an interesting point...
>Conservation of activation time.
>The best design I can think of for a sword with a sustained damaging
>manipulation would be to have an activation trigger that causes the
spell to
>turn on on impact, a time trigger to turn it off say.... a 1/2 second
later
>and a temporal link.
>
>So in effect, the sword is only active for a fraction of a second
during the
>actual strike of the weapon, meaning it could last quite a long time
before
>needing a "recharge".
> Comments?

well... even better than that have an activation trigger of on touch on
the blade and a deactivation trigger of off touch.
(Just be very carefull cleaning the blade :) EGMLOL )
or hmmm another thought what about an activation trigger of touch and a
deactivation trigger of Activation.

Well in-game mechanics wise I don't see why you couldn't set up a anchor
like that.

but from a games balance POV I'd restrict the cycle time to 1 phase or
maybe even 10 phases until the char's next action or end of turn.

The thing to watch out for is that something like my second suggestion
is'nt used, as you could argue that this could happen
A) the spell activates instantly then
B) takes effect causeing damage also instantly then
C) deactivates
for a total activation time of... well... zero for practical concerns.

-Matthew Waddilove

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:13:09 EDT

Message no. 32 In a message dated 4/23/98 3:42:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> The best design I can think of for a sword with a sustained damaging
> manipulation would be to have an activation trigger that causes the spell
to
> turn on on impact, a time trigger to turn it off say.... a 1/2 second later
> and a temporal link.
>
> So in effect, the sword is only active for a fraction of a second during
the
> actual strike of the weapon, meaning it could last quite a long time before
> needing a "recharge".
> Comments?
>
The only thing I could think of is that the "deactivation time" would have to
be something that is more ... I don't know ... perceivable. 1/2 second seems a
bit much, but what about "a beating of the weilder's own heart"? To me it
seems fast, maybe too fast in fact/mechanics, but it's something that the
magic would comprehend.

Basically, I guess I'm trying to say keep any measurements of time in
something perceptable. Whole Units...none of this "half of a <insert time
reference>" sort of thing.

BUT the idea is a good one.

-K

From:	Mark Ellis <mark@******.IDISCOVER.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:32:19 +0100

Message no. 33 -----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 23 April 1998 14:33
Subject: Re: Anchoring...
>The thing to watch out for is that something like my second suggestion
>is'nt used, as you could argue that this could happen
>A) the spell activates instantly then
>B) takes effect causeing damage also instantly then
>C) deactivates
>for a total activation time of... well... zero for practical concerns.
>

Heh heh <evil grin>. Funny thing about magic is alot of it is still
experimental. So when a player tries this, he probably doesnt think of any
of the bad side to anchoring, like astral attacks. So let a spirit break the
anchoring. No probs thinks the player, sustained spells just bleed away.
Trouble is the spell thinks its got a personality crisis, 'cos its effect is
instantaneous. BOOM. Okay, not quite within the rules, but finding ways to
bend officialdom can work on both sides of the GM screen.

Mark

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:56:47 +1000

Message no. 34 Spike writes:
>Now this leads to an interesting point...
>Conservation of activation time.
>The best design I can think of for a sword with a sustained damaging
>manipulation would be to have an activation trigger that causes the spell
to
>turn on on impact, a time trigger to turn it off say.... a 1/2 second later
>and a temporal link.
>
>So in effect, the sword is only active for a fraction of a second during
the
>actual strike of the weapon, meaning it could last quite a long time before
>needing a "recharge".
> Comments?

To get around this, I ruled that a spell would be active for a minimum of 10
phases (basically, until the character's next action). Trying to fudge this
in the manner indicated above results in the anchor not working. But even
so, a 10 minute anchor, for example, lasts a LONG time.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Wraith <wraith@************.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:25:56 -0500

Message no. 35 -----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>

<Snip>

>>Now this leads to an interesting point...
>>Conservation of activation time.
>>The best design I can think of for a sword with a sustained damaging
>>manipulation would be to have an activation trigger that causes the
>spell to
>>turn on on impact, a time trigger to turn it off say.... a 1/2 second
>later
>>and a temporal link.
>>
>well... even better than that have an activation trigger of on touch on
>the blade and a deactivation trigger of off touch.
>(Just be very carefull cleaning the blade :) EGMLOL )
>or hmmm another thought what about an activation trigger of touch and a
>deactivation trigger of Activation.
>
Perhaps two spells could be linked? Anchor Death Touch (Or whatever) to the
sword, and then create a Detect Enemies spell or something , but have the
radius of the spell rather small so that the enemy has to be close to the
blade for the Death Touch to activate. Look on pg. 50 of Grimmy2. this
explains it better. Imagine the person in the diagram is the sword. Make
the the Barrier radius would be the Death Touch spell (Although it would be
on the sword, no radius) and the Detection spell radius would be the Detect
Enemies (except closer in).
Not to mention that with a Detect Enemy spell to activate the Death Touch,
you don't have to worry about the blade cleaning problem <G> (Unless, as
the saying goes, you are your worst enemy <G>)

Wraith

From:	Angel <angel@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring...
Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:34:49 +1000

Message no. 36 Well, is suppose before I reply to this message I should say Hi. I
just joined the list. I have however, sort of been a lurker reading
some of my husband (NightRain's)mail.
>
>> Example: Can someone anchor the Death Touch spell to a sword?
And then
>>activate it with a word?
>
Anchoring it with a word would be fairly ineffective unless you had a
very good sense of timing. If you said the word before it actually
connected with the target, then the spell would not affect them. It
would be much simpler to activate it to go off when it embedded in
human flesh.

Angel.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines" |
| ****************************** |
| angel@***.brisnet.org.au |
| http://www.elf.brisnet.org.au/~macey/angel.htm |
| Listmaster of The Seelie Court |
| <http://www.elf.brisnet.org.au/~macey/seelie.htm>; |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM>
Subject:	Anchoring
Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:08:43 PDT

Message no. 37 Hi,

I know we don't know what is going to happen to anchoring in SR3 with
the release of MitS. But can any tell me, is it possible to anchor
spells to a living being. I don't think you can, but where does it say
you cannot.

Thanks

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:21:04 -0500

Message no. 38 On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:08:43 PDT Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM> writes:
>Hi,
>
>I know we don't know what is going to happen to anchoring in SR3 with
>the release of MitS. But can any tell me, is it possible to anchor
>spells to a living being. I don't think you can, but where does it say
>you cannot.
>
>Thanks
<SNIP>

The Underworld SB has rules for Tattoo magic. That's close. :)

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Michael Coleman <mscoleman@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:05:48 -0500

Message no. 39 > >Hi,
> >
> >I know we don't know what is going to happen to anchoring in SR3 with
> >the release of MitS. But can any tell me, is it possible to anchor
> >spells to a living being. I don't think you can, but where does it say
> >you cannot.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Razor Girl
>
> The Underworld SB has rules for Tattoo magic. That's close. :)
>
> D. Ghost
> (aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
> o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`
>

Has anyone ever used Tattoo magic or Triad magig in a game? I thought the
amount of skin need for the tattoo to be a bit excessive. 160 square cm!!!
How much skin area does a person have?

Mike

From:	Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:24:32 -0500

Message no. 40 From: Michael Coleman <mscoleman@********.NET>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 2:03 AM

>> The Underworld SB has rules for Tattoo magic. That's close. :)
>
>Has anyone ever used Tattoo magic or Triad magig in a game? I thought the
>amount of skin need for the tattoo to be a bit excessive. 160 square cm!!!
>How much skin area does a person have?

160 cm^2 is only a patch of skin around 5 inches on a side, Michael; it
translates to about 25 in^2. I don't know how much skin surface the average
person has, but it's a lot more than that.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

From:	K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:57:21 EDT

Message no. 41 In a message dated 9/12/1998 10:09:26 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sprawlg@*******.COM writes:

>
> I know we don't know what is going to happen to anchoring in SR3 with
> the release of MitS. But can any tell me, is it possible to anchor
> spells to a living being. I don't think you can, but where does it say
> you cannot.

How about this? Within the Underworld Sourcebook are the rules for "Tattoo
Magic", which would allow an Anchoring to be placed directly upon a living
being (well, as directly as can be allowed anyway). You might want to look
that away for suggestions.

-K (who won't break any rules now)

From:	K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 04:18:48 EDT

Message no. 42 In a message dated 9/13/1998 2:04:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mscoleman@********.NET writes:

> > The Underworld SB has rules for Tattoo magic. That's close. :)
> >
> > D. Ghost
> > (aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
> > o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`
> >
>
> Has anyone ever used Tattoo magic or Triad magig in a game? I thought the
> amount of skin need for the tattoo to be a bit excessive. 160 square cm!!!
> How much skin area does a person have?

I also thought that the amount of skin coverage was excessive, so we utilized
something else. A given Tattoo had a given "rating" or "quality
factor" that
had to be encorporated somehow. Usually that factor was the rating of the
Anchoring, which in turn became the basis for the area covered.

THEN, with a good skill roll (similar to the Surgery rules in Street Samurai),
the surface area could be reduced somewhat down to a given minimum (GM's
control here).

There are lots of ways around this, IF the GM is allowing for such, but again
that is all up to game flavor and general level of play.

-K

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:16:40 -0500

Message no. 43 On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:57:21 EDT K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 9/12/1998 10:09:26 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>sprawlg@*******.COM writes:

>> I know we don't know what is going to happen to anchoring in SR3 with
>> the release of MitS. But can any tell me, is it possible to anchor
>> spells to a living being. I don't think you can, but where does it
say
>> you cannot.

>How about this? Within the Underworld Sourcebook are the rules for
"Tattoo
>Magic", which would allow an Anchoring to be placed directly upon a
living
>being (well, as directly as can be allowed anyway). You might want to
look
>that away for suggestions.
>
>-K (who won't break any rules now)

Actually, Tattoo Magic is Quickening, not Anchoring but close enough ...
:)

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` I traded my Flesh for a Fantasy and now my truck broke down, my wife
left me, and my dog died o/` -- Billy Idol, Jr. Rock Country Singer

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Royce Cetlin <rcetlin@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:20:40 PDT

Message no. 44 >On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 03:57:21 EDT K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
>writes:
>>In a message dated 9/12/1998 10:09:26 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>>sprawlg@*******.COM writes:
>
>>> I know we don't know what is going to happen to anchoring in SR3
with
>>> the release of MitS. But can any tell me, is it possible to anchor
>>> spells to a living being. I don't think you can, but where does it
>say
>>> you cannot.
>
>>How about this? Within the Underworld Sourcebook are the rules for
>"Tattoo
>>Magic", which would allow an Anchoring to be placed directly upon a
>living
>>being (well, as directly as can be allowed anyway). You might want to
>look
>>that away for suggestions.
>>
>>-K (who won't break any rules now)
>
>Actually, Tattoo Magic is Quickening, not Anchoring but close enough
...
>:)
>
>D. Ghost
>(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
>o/` I traded my Flesh for a Fantasy and now my truck broke down, my
wife
>left me, and my dog died o/` -- Billy Idol, Jr. Rock Country Singer

If I remember my rules correctly (I haven't read Grim2 in a while),
Quickening and anchoring are pretty close to each other. Quickening for
living beings and Anchoring for inanimate objects. Hope that help
answers yer question....

Pathfinder

<* if something blocks point b from point A, blow it the heck up!! *>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:38:47 PDT

Message no. 45 >If I remember my rules correctly (I haven't read Grim2 in a while),
>Quickening and anchoring are pretty close to each other. Quickening
>for living beings and Anchoring for inanimate objects. Hope that help
>answers yer question....
>
>Pathfinder

Actually, in SR2 you can quicken for anything, living or dead. Increased
Reflexes +3 on a troll ganger or Silence on a Panther Assault Cannon.

With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could quicken a
whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target number of
9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to shrug off the
drain.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:11:50 -0400

Message no. 46 At 11:38 AM 9/13/98 PDT, you wrote:
>Actually, in SR2 you can quicken for anything, living or dead. Increased
>Reflexes +3 on a troll ganger or Silence on a Panther Assault Cannon.
>
>With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could quicken a
>whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
>shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
>healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target number of
>9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to shrug off the
>drain.
>

You can only quicken sustained duration spells. I believe "Treat" is a
permanent duration spell.

I don't know if anchoring would solve the problem or not (no one ever seems
to use it - so I don't remember how it works, off hand). I'd look
Anchoring up, its in the Grimmy.

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:55:19 -0500

Message no. 47 On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:38:47 PDT Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM> writes:
<SNIP>
>With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could quicken a
>whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
>shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
>healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target number of
>9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to shrug off the
>drain.
<SNIP>

Nope. Sorry ... can't be done ... Treat is a permenant spell and can't
be Quickened for one ... secondly, IF you could quicken Treat, it would
only heal the damage inflicted before it was quickened ... Now if
designed a regeneration spell, THAT could be quickened (Though, IF I
allowed the spell (Which I wouldn't), I'd give the spell something like
Deadly drain, same T# for Heal to cast it, and it only heals 1 box per
[Number boxes of damage taken] minutes. [IOW, a same with 9 boxes of
damage heals one box in 9 minutes, another box in 8 minutes, another box
in 7 minutes, etc ...])

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` I traded my Flesh for a Fantasy and now my truck broke down, my wife
left me, and my dog died o/` -- Billy Idol, Jr. Rock Country Singer

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:32:36 +0100

Message no. 48 And verily, did Royce Cetlin hastily scribble thusly...
|If I remember my rules correctly (I haven't read Grim2 in a while),
|Quickening and anchoring are pretty close to each other. Quickening for
|living beings and Anchoring for inanimate objects. Hope that help
|answers yer question....

Nahhhh. There's nothing to say that you can't quicken to inanimate objects.
In fact, the example with the rat-shaman and the stink-cloud spell (or
whatever it is) was performed on an inanimate object.

Anchoring is VERY MUCH different from quickening.
Quickening just performs the same function of a spell-lock without a
physical link.

Anchoring has various... extras, such as activation links, temporal links,
de-activation links, and so on.

Once a quickening is on, it stays on until permanently removed.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |

From:	Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:32:28 -0500

Message no. 49 ----------
> From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
>
> And verily, did Royce Cetlin hastily scribble thusly...
> |If I remember my rules correctly (I haven't read Grim2 in a
while),
> |Quickening and anchoring are pretty close to each other.
Quickening for
> |living beings and Anchoring for inanimate objects. Hope that help
> |answers yer question....
>
> Nahhhh. There's nothing to say that you can't quicken to inanimate
objects.
> In fact, the example with the rat-shaman and the stink-cloud spell
(or
> whatever it is) was performed on an inanimate object.

Uhh, Spike? He centered the spell on a poor slob... might not move
all that much, but I don't think he would qualify as inanimate.

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Anchoring
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:39:24 +0100

Message no. 50 And verily, did Nexx hastily scribble thusly...
|Uhh, Spike? He centered the spell on a poor slob... might not move
|all that much, but I don't think he would qualify as inanimate.
|

He did? Hmmmm. Could've sworn he centred it on the middle of the bar....

Oh well....

Hello foot, meet mouth...
Hmmphmmmm mmmmphmmthmmmph...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |

Message no. 51 :With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could ANCHOR a
:whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
:shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
:healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target :number
of 9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to :shrug off
the drain.

OOOPS. I made a mistake. I meant anchor. Anchor a treat spell to my
friend's samaurai. And if i can anchor to living creatures, is it to the
whole creature, the anchoring is attached, or could it be to body parts.
eg: Left hand Treat, Right hand Pain resistance, Left leg physical
Barrier and Right leg Shapeshift.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Message no. 52 On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:52:02 PDT Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM> writes:
>:With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could ANCHOR a
>:whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
>:shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
>:healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target
>:number of 9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to
>:shrug off the drain.
>
>OOOPS. I made a mistake. I meant anchor. Anchor a treat spell to my
>friend's samaurai. And if i can anchor to living creatures, is it to the
>whole creature, the anchoring is attached, or could it be to body parts.
>eg: Left hand Treat, Right hand Pain resistance, Left leg physical
>Barrier and Right leg Shapeshift.
<SNIP>

Oh ... in that case ... you could probably anchor a treat spell to an
object and use it to cast the spell but you'd roll against the 9 T# then
(I think ...) and it'd be a one-shot thing ... Basicly and enchanted
medkit ...

As for the second part ... anchoring applies to the object ... not part
of the object AFAIK ...

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` I traded my Flesh for a Fantasy and now my truck broke down, my wife
left me, and my dog died o/` -- Billy Idol, Jr. Rock Country Singer

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 53 >>OOOPS. I made a mistake. I meant anchor. Anchor a treat spell to my
>>friend's samaurai. And if i can anchor to living creatures, is it to
the
>>whole creature, the anchoring is attached, or could it be to body
parts.
>>eg: Left hand Treat, Right hand Pain resistance, Left leg physical
>>Barrier and Right leg Shapeshift.
><SNIP>
>
>Oh ... in that case ... you could probably anchor a treat spell to an
>object and use it to cast the spell but you'd roll against the 9 T#
>then (I think ...) and it'd be a one-shot thing ... Basicly and
>enchanted medkit ...
>
>As for the second part ... anchoring applies to the object ... not part
of the object AFAIK ...
>D. Ghost

Yes, I know I could anchor to an object. But Would the samurai count as
an object. Could I anchor directly to him as a living, animate and
concious being? And if not, why not?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Message no. 54 Razor Girl wrote:

Yes, I know I could anchor to an object. But Would the samurai count as
> an object. Could I anchor directly to him as a living, animate and
> concious being? And if not, why not?

As far as my understanding of the rules goes, (which isn't much farther
than I could spit a troll)
you can anchor the spell to pretty much anything, and leave a condition
such as: When Sammie's Condition
monitor = S, cast treat. I'm fairly certain I'm wrong somehow, but IMO
the best way to get the right answer is in response to a wrong one.
Also, I remember the rules stating that it was possible with anchoring
to make
limited use magical items that even mundanes could use.

-Grunion
--
"You said you were the king of liars,
And I believed you and called you sire,
But now I realize that I have been decieved."
-They Might Be Giants

Message no. 55 >Razor Girl wrote:
>
>Yes, I know I could anchor to an object. But Would the samurai count as
>> an object. Could I anchor directly to him as a living, animate and
>> concious being? And if not, why not?

from what I've heard, U can anchor to anything.

>As far as my understanding of the rules goes, (which isn't much farther
>than I could spit a troll)

That's not a pretty sight...

>you can anchor the spell to pretty much anything, and leave a condition
>such as: When Sammie's Condition
>monitor = S, cast treat. I'm fairly certain I'm wrong somehow

Uhm, actually...You'd probably state it as 'when the samurai achieves
serious damage treat spell kicks in..'

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Message no. 56 On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Razor Girl wrote:

<snip>
->With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could quicken a
->whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
->shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
->healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target number of
->9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to shrug off the
->drain.

Ok, I know you can anchor instant and sustained effects, but I
don't believe you can Anchor a permanent effect. How about creating a
healing spell that, instead of actually HEALING the damage, enhances the
character's own healing rate by a multiplier equal to the number of
successes in the test? In other words, they divide all healing times by
the number of successes in the spell. This would be of sustained duration
(and therefore be Quicken-able... hmm.....) and probably have a TN of
10-Essence. I don't have the Grimoire handy so I can't make up the drain
but this seems like it'll work for your purposes. It just won't be as
fast. A Force 4 spell with 4 successes would let a Sami heal a Moderate
Wound down to a Light wound in a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 60
hours. Light wounds would be gone in 30 minutes to 6 hours (max).
With regards to Anchoring, can't you Quicken an Anchored spell?
How about Anchoring the spell to a pendant the Sammy wears and then
Quicken it to make it permanent (if you can Anchor permanent spell
effects).

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

Message no. 57 Michael Coleman <mscoleman@********.NET> said:
>
> <Snipped anchoring stuff>
>
> Has anyone ever used Tattoo magic or Triad magig in a game? I thought the
> amount of skin need for the tattoo to be a bit excessive. 160 square cm!!!
> How much skin area does a person have?

My mage uses Tattoo magic. As others have said, it really doesn't take up
much skin (at least compared to what most people have). He does a lot of
enchanting, and was intrigued when he found some info on tattoo magic. He
has 8 I think, all Force 1 to 3, though he hasn't asctually quickened spells
to all 8 yet. He mainly got them because they were a neat idea, and a
further use of his magical abilities. They don't really do much. They
double the effective force of the quickened spell for defense only. For
Force 1 to 3 spells, it just means they take longer to go away. He mainly
relies on Masking the good ones, and hopes no one bothers with the others.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-

Message no. 58 In a message dated 9/13/1998 1:11:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

>
> Actually, Tattoo Magic is Quickening, not Anchoring but close enough ...
> :)
>
> D. Ghost

And adaptable to an Anchoring mode in such a nice way....actually, I got one
for the SR3 approach.

Tattoo Magic, when combined with a person, creates an object that a Quickening
is adherent towards. Does this sound like one of those "Sustaining Spell
Foci" things from SR3, or is it just me???

-K

Message no. 59 :How about creating a
:healing spell that, instead of actually HEALING the damage, enhances the
:character's own healing rate by a multiplier equal to the number of
:successes in the test?

Or you could use an "increase body" spell. That would give the fella
more dice to roll when healing, and, if used in combat, reduce injury in
the first place.
Its also handy because first aid and doctoring TN's are lower for
high-body patients. That spell and "increase willpower" are awful nice to
have for doctoring situations (like cyber-implantation).

:In other words, they divide all healing times by
:the number of successes in the spell. This would be of sustained
duration
:(and therefore be Quicken-able... hmm.....) and probably have a TN of
:10-Essence. I don't have the Grimoire handy so I can't make up the drain
:but this seems like it'll work for your purposes. It just won't be as
:fast. A Force 4 spell with 4 successes would let a Sami heal a Moderate
:Wound down to a Light wound in a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 60
:hours. Light wounds would be gone in 30 minutes to 6 hours (max).

Thats an awfully powerful spell- but, probaly, no more so than a
normal "heal" spell. I don't think you could use both, as they likely
would have similar mechanisms.
The advantage of your spell would be that the drain would not have to
be variable; the cost is paid by sutaining it longer for more serious
injury.

: With regards to Anchoring, can't you Quicken an Anchored spell?
:How about Anchoring the spell to a pendant the Sammy wears and then
:Quicken it to make it permanent (if you can Anchor permanent spell
:effects).

HMMM- maybe, but I think you could also just quicken it on whatever you
wanted.

Mongoose

Message no. 60 > -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]On
> Behalf Of Razor Girl
> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 14:39
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Anchoring
>
>
> >If I remember my rules correctly (I haven't read Grim2 in a while),
> >Quickening and anchoring are pretty close to each other. Quickening
> >for living beings and Anchoring for inanimate objects. Hope that help
> >answers yer question....
> >
> >Pathfinder
>
> Actually, in SR2 you can quicken for anything, living or dead. Increased
> Reflexes +3 on a troll ganger or Silence on a Panther Assault Cannon.
>
> With this whole posting I am trying to find out if I could quicken a
> whole bunch of Treat spells to my friend's samurai character. Save my
> shaman from drain in combat. Usually when a sam comes looking for
> healing they are one or two boxes from dead. And with a target number of
> 9 it is a real bitch to heal them and have enough dice to shrug off the
> drain.

I am [under SR3] allowing a mage (hermetic trad, in case you care, though it
makes no difference), to anchor to a tattoo. It was not easy. First, I made
him learn the trick from the yakuza (who owed him a favor at the time; now
he owes them...). This eventually meant he ended up with a tattoo Active
skill, a Tattoo design knowledge/artisan skill, and, of course, some time
spent increasing his enchanting skill... Second, he had to design and
enchant a kit for the purpose (effectively a Rating X special focus, using
the numbers for a spell category focus). The rating of this focus limits the
total rating of the tattoo that forms the material base for the anchoring
(IE, the sum of the force of the spells, plus the sum of the links, is
limited by the rating of the tattoo kit), and this *does* cause focus
addiction (though that addiction would only be limited to using any tattoo
skills).

Beyond this, the "rating" of the tattoo is equal to the sum of the force of
the spells, plus the sum of the links, and a tattoo is limited to anchoring
a relatively specific set of spells (ie, the tattoo inscribed for a detect
wound level/treat spell, would not then be useful for a detect
phrase/increased reflexes spell; though the relative forces of the spells,
and the complexity of the links, could be changed).

Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Homepage : http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~jhurley1

Message no. 61 Mongoose <evamarie@**********.net> said:
>
> :How about creating a
> :healing spell that, instead of actually HEALING the damage, enhances the
> :character's own healing rate by a multiplier equal to the number of
> :successes in the test?
>
> Or you could use an "increase body" spell. That would give the fella
> more dice to roll when healing, and, if used in combat, reduce injury in
> the first place.
> Its also handy because first aid and doctoring TN's are lower for
> high-body patients. That spell and "increase willpower" are awful nice to
> have for doctoring situations (like cyber-implantation).

However, in SR2 at least, the standard healing test used Body and Willpower
*unaugmented* by Magic. I don't think the rules for First Aid or healing
Stun damage mention this, but the rules for long-term healing of physical
wounds does. Our group just adds the "magical assistance" modifier since
my mage has all of the appropriate healing spells.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-

Message no. 62 On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Brian Moore wrote:

->Mongoose <evamarie@**********.net> said:
->>
->> :How about creating a
->> :healing spell that, instead of actually HEALING the damage, enhances the
->> :character's own healing rate by a multiplier equal to the number of
->> :successes in the test?
->>
->> Or you could use an "increase body" spell. That would give the
fella
<snip rest>
->
->However, in SR2 at least, the standard healing test used Body and Willpower
->*unaugmented* by Magic. I don't think the rules for First Aid or healing
->Stun damage mention this, but the rules for long-term healing of physical
->wounds does. Our group just adds the "magical assistance" modifier since
->my mage has all of the appropriate healing spells.

I can't find anywhere where it says in SR3 that you only use
unaugmented Body or Willpower for healing (it does say to use natural Body
to determine whether or not the damaged character needs medical attention
rather than healnig normally).
Another one of those "phantom rule changes" that you never notice
until you REALLY read the rules. ];-)

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

Message no. 63 Our Gm has decided he would run the Harlequin's Back module and in
setting up a dwarf mage I came across the anchoring rules in the
Grimoire
If I am right then I could cast a force 2 lightning Bolt spell on a
combat axe - normal damage (Str)S and end up with a weapon with a damage
code of (11)D for the total expenditure of 2 Karma with a time limit to
its use in total of 8 minutes
e.g. Force of spell 2 therefore spend 2 karma to enchant axe
TN for spell 8 - highly refined materials - activation link - word to
turn on cost +1 drain level but requirement of touch negates (-1 Drain
Level) Temporal link 3 to 8 minutes +2 drain level
Spell has drain of damage level +1 - use serious level = Deadly so
drain goes to 5D . Elemental manipulation spell serious raises damage
level +3 and for each level above deadly adds +2 to power and one half
of force of spell adding to power level of weapon then with the dwarf
having a strength of 6 the total damage is 6 +2 +2 +1 = 11D

Is this right? Can anyone suggest any other such lurks? NOt that I
want to have a super power character but with what the GM is throwing at
us we will need all the help we can get
Malcolm

Message no. 64 You would also have to get the magician to design and learn that touch-range
lightning spell, for another two karma.

The 2nd ed Anchoring rules are pretty hard to apply. Maybe they will be
seriously reworked in MITS...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malcolm Shaw [SMTP:malhms@*********.COM.AU]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 16:09
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Anchoring
>
> Our Gm has decided he would run the Harlequin's Back module and in
> setting up a dwarf mage I came across the anchoring rules in the
> Grimoire
> If I am right then I could cast a force 2 lightning Bolt spell on a
> combat axe - normal damage (Str)S and end up with a weapon with a damage
> code of (11)D for the total expenditure of 2 Karma with a time limit to
> its use in total of 8 minutes
> e.g. Force of spell 2 therefore spend 2 karma to enchant axe
> TN for spell 8 - highly refined materials - activation link - word to
> turn on cost +1 drain level but requirement of touch negates (-1 Drain
> Level) Temporal link 3 to 8 minutes +2 drain level
> Spell has drain of damage level +1 - use serious level = Deadly so
> drain goes to 5D . Elemental manipulation spell serious raises damage
> level +3 and for each level above deadly adds +2 to power and one half
> of force of spell adding to power level of weapon then with the dwarf
> having a strength of 6 the total damage is 6 +2 +2 +1 = 11D
>
> Is this right? Can anyone suggest any other such lurks? NOt that I
> want to have a super power character but with what the GM is throwing at
> us we will need all the help we can get
> Malcolm

Message no. 65 Malcolm Shaw indicated Anchoring

> Our Gm has decided he would run the Harlequin's Back module and in
> setting up a dwarf mage I came across the anchoring rules in the
> Grimoire
> If I am right then I could cast a force 2 lightning Bolt spell on a
> combat axe - normal damage (Str)S and end up with a weapon with a damage
> code of (11)D for the total expenditure of 2 Karma with a time limit to
> its use in total of 8 minutes

No. It would have to be a sustained damaging manipulation spell.
The only one published by FASA at this point which fits the
requirements is flame aura. Also, the karma required would be 5 - 2
for the force, 1 for the activation link, 1 for the deactivation link and
1 for the temporal link.

If you anchored the lightning bolt spell to the combat axe, it would
cost 4 Karma (no temporal link). When activated, it charges the
axe with electricity since you can't direct it. Unless the axe handle
is insulated, it will zap you as well.

Elindor Quinn
The Devil's Advocate

Message no. 66 Ciao guys,
I've got a little problem with the Anchoring rules (Grimoire 2nd
edition): the spells a mage anchor to an object will work every time the
activation conditions will be met or just once and then he'll have to
"recharge" the object (God save the Karma...) ?
Could anyone give me an answer ?

Thank you very much!

BitJack

Message no. 67 At 02:17 PM 2/5/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Ciao guys,
> I've got a little problem with the Anchoring rules (Grimoire 2nd
>edition): the spells a mage anchor to an object will work every time the
>activation conditions will be met or just once and then he'll have to
>"recharge" the object (God save the Karma...) ?
>Could anyone give me an answer ?

The way I remember it, in most circumstances you will simply have to
'recharge' the *spell* - the karma remains invested.
Sorta like the karma invested represents how big the can is and the spell
you've anchored represents the worms you've placed inside. Geez, that
hardly even makes sense to me :(. How about the karma is the gun caliber
and the spell is the bullet?
Never mind. Anyway, the karma stays good and the item is reusable but you
still need to recast the spell into it.

Of course, that all changes a little bit if you link the, um, whatever the
sustaining link was called to a sustained spell.

I really hope that helps. It's early.
Hg

---
I'm just a soul who's intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.
ICQ #30414011 ---

Message no. 68 : I've got a little problem with the Anchoring rules (Grimoire 2nd
:edition): the spells a mage anchor to an object will work every time the
:activation conditions will be met or just once and then he'll have to
:"recharge" the object (God save the Karma...) ?
:Could anyone give me an answer ?

Most times, he would have to "recharge" it (say, if an instantaneous
spell were triggered). If you want a anchor that will go on when a
condition is triggered more than once, the activated spell needs to be
sustained, and it needs a activation, temporal, and de-activation link.
That way it turns on, stays on a while, then turns off before running out.
However, you can use ("recharge") an enchanted anchoring item over
an over without having to spend more karma. You could even put a DIFFERET
set of spells and links into it, afaik.

Mongoose

Message no. 69 In a message dated 2/5/1999 4:56:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> However, you can use ("recharge") an enchanted anchoring item over
> an over without having to spend more karma. You could even put a DIFFERET
> set of spells and links into it, afaik.
>
> Mongoose
>
*blinks*
*blinks again*
*sighs*

Message no. 70 From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>

:m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:
:
:> However, you can use ("recharge") an enchanted anchoring item
over
:> an over without having to spend more karma. You could even put a
DIFFERET
:> set of spells and links into it, afaik.
:>
:> Mongoose
:>
:*blinks*
:*blinks again*
:*sighs
:-K

What? What? Why the exasperation, K? :)

This impression of mine came from p. 47 of G(2)- "The magician must
spend a number of karma points equal to the total Force Rating Points of
the spell to be anchored , plus the number of links (see below) in use.
Once an item or place has been prepared, it may be used over and over
without additional Karma cost. If the magician wishes to later anchor
another spell whose total <blah blah> spend additional karma <blah
blah>".

I read that and figured an anchor item was basically able to accept
any anchor it could handle, and was neither one-shot or limited to its
original use. (At least, the creating mage can re-use them).
So I *think* I got it right, at least for the next month or so. That
could change somewhat, Maybe In The Spring...

Mongoose

Thank you all for visiting
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Chamber/5072/srmnvbr.htm

Message no. 71 In a message dated 2/7/1999 3:50:16 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

>
> I read that and figured an anchor item was basically able to accept
> any anchor it could handle, and was neither one-shot or limited to its
> original use. (At least, the creating mage can re-use them).
> So I *think* I got it right, at least for the next month or so. That
> could change somewhat, Maybe In The Spring...
>
Ah, okay, after reading all of that, I got clarified. And you're right,
maybe....

-K ;-)

Message no. 72 Hey all,

I wonder if you can clarify the rules on anchoring for me, as I'm not sure
I'm fully understanding them...

as i get it, you can charge an anchoring focus (lets make it a permanent
one for now) with an invisibility spell, say, and when it is triggered,
the mage that created it takes the drain. how, then does this work with
spells like invisibility and physical mask, where you can change
appaearance, switch it off and on etc - can you turn the "effect" off an
on, and how does this affect the drain, does it use drain every time its
used, or just the first time? the example in MiTS gives a hood with
physical mask, which is where I'm basing my questions on, as a permanent
spell that cn be turned off and on...

any enlightenment appreciated, as I think I'm being stupid, but cant
figure out *how* stupid :-)

--
jconstable@*****.com
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe

Message no. 73 does it use
> drain every time its
> used, or just the first time?
Yes it would create drain every time you turn it
on/off or change the appearence as in the illusion
spells.

Another question is :if you had three spells go off at
once (lets say a detect enemy/physical barrier/astral
barrier) would they be considered stacked and so their
drain increased or would the drain be aplied
separatly?
I say that it should be taken separatly and not as
stacked.
What say thou?

====-It didn't look so big in paper!!!!
-Ideas grow,Shiro.Sometimes bigger than life!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Message no. 74 On Wed, 30 May 2001, Shiro BsquLadat wrote:
> Another question is :if you had three spells go off at
> once (lets say a detect enemy/physical barrier/astral
> barrier) would they be considered stacked and so their
> drain increased or would the drain be aplied
> separatly?
> I say that it should be taken separatly and not as
> stacked.
> What say thou?

I think that makes sense, according to the rules as I remember them; each
spell is being fired off by the enchanted item, after all, they just
happen to be occuring at the same time. that's my take on it anyway.

while I'm posting about anchoring magic, can people gie me some examples
of when its been used in thier games, I mean, I can see the advantage for
the non awakened to have these, but I'm not sure I can see the advantage
for a mage to create one for himself, beyong the immediate
"anti-assasination" device the rules gives (bullet barrier/detect bullet)
once again, I'm probably missing something, but what do people think about
this? any good ideas been used? bad ones? :-)

John
--
jconstable@*****.com
"Stupidity got us into this, why can't it get us out?" - Valeu John (I think)

Message no. 75 >> Another question is :if you had three spells go off at
>> once (lets say a detect enemy/physical barrier/astral
>> barrier) would they be considered stacked and so their
>> drain increased or would the drain be aplied
>> separatly?
>> I say that it should be taken separatly and not as
>> stacked.
>> What say thou?

I don't think the drain caused by triggering is at all affected. For one
thing, the detection spell would have to be up and running (and thus its
drain already resisted) before it can trigger other effects. MITS does not
say anything about one detection spell (or other trigger) triggering
multiple spells- I'm not sure an Anchor can HAVE multiple effect spells, or
a that a trigger could activate more than one spell.

>I think that makes sense, according to the rules as I remember them; each
>spell is being fired off by the enchanted item, after all, they just
>happen to be occuring at the same time. that's my take on it anyway.

I was going to say the same, but could not find any refrence to back it up,
and had doubts it could be done. However, at the time of casting them
("linking the Spell", p. 70 MITS), they ARE considered part of the
spellcasting action, although this only affects the dice used. Drain IS
affected, but its not the standard multi-casting penalty- its worse. Note
that this is drain for the linking, not for the triggering of the spell, so
it doesn't help much.

>while I'm posting about anchoring magic, can people gie me some examples
>of when its been used in thier games, I mean, I can see the advantage for
>the non awakened to have these, but I'm not sure I can see the advantage
>for a mage to create one for himself, beyong the immediate
>"anti-assasination" device the rules gives (bullet barrier/detect bullet)
>once again, I'm probably missing something, but what do people think about
>this? any good ideas been used? bad ones? :-)
>
>John

Anything you would use a sustaining focus for, an Anchoring focus might do
better. Sure, you still take drain when the spell comes into effect, but
you are not casting it. Think about that- no allocating sorcery dice and
spell pool. Leaves you lots more dice for resisting drain and spell
defense. Your injuries (and maybe other modifiers) do not matter to the
anchor when it casts the spell- making it ideal for self-healing magic (the
old ring of healing), or maybe even some offensive uses (think area effect
anti-spirit spells). Also, triggering an anchor is a simple action, while
cssting a spell into a sustaining focus is a complex action, and an
exclusive one to boot (no sustaining other spells while doing it, no
maintaining spell defense).
The one dis-advantage is that an anchor that has a spell linked is (iirc)
astrally active even before it is triggered- so you might think its as well
to be walking around with an active sustaining focus. However, there are
times when I could see the flexability of the anchor being a very big
advantage- sometimes you want acess to the spell, but don't want the spells
effect to be obvious yet. Armor, Barrier, and Invisability spells come to
mind as instances where that might apply. A good initiate could mask the
presence of an active Anchor (that has not yet been triggered), but they
can't hide an active spell.

-Mongoose

Message no. 76 John wrote:

>while I'm posting about anchoring magic, can people gie me some >
>examples of when its been used in thier games, I mean, I can see the >
>advantage for the non awakened to have these, but I'm not sure I can > see
>the advantage for a mage to create one for himself, beyong the >
>immediate "anti-assasination" device the rules gives bullet >
>barrier/detect bullet) once again, I'm probably missing something, > but
> >what do people think about this? any good ideas been used? bad > ones?
>:-)
>
>John

Not many people seem to use anchoring using the SR3 rules. It was more
popular back with SR2 as you could cast the spell and make the drain
resistance test at home, then use it on a run. However, this meant that you
could fire off anchored spells with no drain- since you'd done that at home-
and for a free action if you linked it to a simple detect spell. It could
really be abused though so they changed it to the current system.

Okay, some anchoring ideas I've used.

The 'Oh Drek' focus, to be used when your cornered by security goons. My
shaman took a rating 10 anchor and loaded it with Detect Phrase 2, Detect
Enemies 3, Chaotic World 5 and linked them all together. So when he said
"Don't shoot!", he triggered the Detect Phrase spell, which set off the
Detect Enemies spell which decided who in the immeadiate area was an enemy,
which then triggered the Chaotic World which cast itself on whoever the
Detect Enemies said was the bad guys. This managed to save my character a
couple of times when he was cornered. He'd drop his gun, put his hands up
and shout "Don't shoot!". The Chaotic World spell disorientated the sec
guards long enough for him to run for it. Very nice.:)

Magical booby traps. Just like in MitS, link a Detect Individual (the
target) with a Turn To Goo spell. I sent it through the post to a target
disguised as business papers. Lots of places detect for bombs or poisons but
over-look magic, besides mages are rare. The targeted exec. opened the
package and promptly turned to mush on the office floor. No-one seemed to
mind the takeover bid of their company so much after that.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Message no. 77 <snippity snip snip>
> Magical booby traps. Just like in MitS, link a Detect Individual
> (the
> target) with a Turn To Goo spell. I sent it through the post to a
> target
> disguised as business papers. Lots of places detect for bombs or
> poisons but
> over-look magic, besides mages are rare. The targeted exec. opened
> the
> package and promptly turned to mush on the office floor. No-one
> seemed to
> mind the takeover bid of their company so much after that.

sorry about the old thread, but I was cleaning out my inbox and had to
respond...

What about astral signature? and on that note is there a spell that can
do astral cleanup? I can't remember right now but I'm almost positive
that there is. If there isn't would you say that Astral Static(MITS?)
would muddle the spell sig, or would it just leave another?

Also even if you do destroy the spell sig, the focus could be used as a
ritual link because you payed karma for it, right? now say you did this
with flashpaper, would the ashes still be a viable link? and shouldnt
there be rules for a expecdable achoring focus, maybe something along the
lines of a focus fetish?

mike fontaine
2000-09-164

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer