Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Master Hawk <fannicm%WKUVX1.bitnet@******.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject: swords
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 21:54:15 CDT
Galen Silversmith <galens@***.GWU.EDU> writes:
>
>On Sat, 16 Oct 1993, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
>
>> 5. Never, ever deal with a dragon . . . unless he owes you his life and
>> you have him by the balls.
>>
>Or, if your Faithful Band of Runners (tm) has both Far-Slayer and the
>Sword of Heros at once... (Don't ask. You don't want to know.)
>
>We've also got Stonecutter, but thats sorta irrelevant too...

ShieldBreaker and the Sword of Justice also could do a bit to liven
up (or the reverse) a dragon's life and negotiating posture.
I'd like to see a fixer with the Sword of Glory,
or a street doc with the Sword of Mercy,
or a runner with Coinspinner or the Sword of Wisdom,
etc. . .

Thawps routed to alt.null

:-)
-=-=-=-=-
_ _ _ _ ,
' ) ) ) _/_ ' ) / /
/ / / __. _ / _ __ /--/ __. , , , /_
/ ' (_(_/|_/_)_<__</_/ ( / (_(_/|_(_(_/_/ <_
Message no. 2
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Swords...
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 17:50:32 GMT
>Well, the more finely-forged swords shall be less breakable. Mere cast steel
>blades are quite more brittle than the more refined weapons. I know it may
>sound cliche' (considering how much attention was paid to this detail in the
>film "Highlander"), but folding a sword in the process of forging it endows
it
>with incredible resiliency if repeated sufficiently.

Which is how Katanas are made, I believe. Folded many, many times, and honed
to a razor sharp edge.

J Roberson
Message no. 3
From: SHADE <MFN6430@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 12:59:27 -0600
>To quote SHADE:

SHADE does not comment on magical stuff so you are not talking to SHADE
Isbin and thurmite comment on magical stuff.

>] Problems with this are: Swords can't move,
>
> Why not? Allies move in 3 dimensions with no hassle. You claiming
> that just because it does not have legs it cannot move? I really
> doubt that it is the legs of a inhabited ally that move it
> through the air.

I might see that it can move. Ok the sword can move.
>] Swords can't see so they can't cast spells.
>
> They can't? I was not aware that you needed eyes to perceive.
> Vision is also not always required for spell casting.
> Also, the sword is designed so that the handle/pummel/whatever
> has a dragon's head.
> Also II, try claivoyance should you not accept either of the above.
No they can't unless the sword is in the mages hand or flying around all
the time it cant see through the sheath. Vision is always required for los
spells. Very few spells are not los and those that are not are touch. I
believe we already had the discussion of clairvoyance and you cannot cast spells
through it.

>] You cant hide an ally with an astral quest so people can still drop spells
>] on you from astral space.
>
> You can't hide any ally, regardless of the form. Also, unlike
> other foci, this one is sentient and always astral so unlike
> you power foci, this one can warn you, and it also can provide
> spell defense since allies receive your sorcery at creation.
>
> As a side note, dropping spells is difficult to do in our game;
> see my previous posts about my modifications to astral space.

I agree you can't hide allies. It provides a wonderful way to
ground spells onto the mage. The ally can't block them. He can only provide
spell defense. When he is doing that he can't do anything else like aide
sorcery. We are not talking about your game either, we are talking about the
rules in general. love to see this sword enter a circle, ward, etc since it
is always partially active. Dropping those warns the opposition.

>] You have turned your ally into a power focus.
>
> So then you opinion is that allies in general are a waste of
> karma I presume? I have also made an interesting device in that
> I can hand to my mundane friend/comrade and know he has
> some defense against magic in the form of my allies spell
> defense. I could also teach it armed and have a neat dancing toy,
> I could also use it like Saberhagen's Farslayer, yes most of
> this is just hypotheticals, I like the roleplay aspect of
> the sword... especially if I give it attribute enhancing spells
> so it can power up the wielder.

No I love my ally. I just never saw the purpose in limiting him with
the inhabitation power. You could not teach it to be a dancing sword since you
are not a sword and this is closer to unarmed combat than armed combat, but that
is not right either.

Allies are wonderful toys, I just don't like the idea of a sword being
an ally. I do most of the things you have commented on with mine. Some more
problems with a sword are taking it anywhere with you since it is illegal to
carry a sword. Anywhere you go the sword will have to be sheathed, and hidden.
If it does start floating around they are at least going to demand that you
check it at the door. It can't see much from there even if it does have eyes


>] See above for sense link power.
>
> New opinion given these responses?
>
> You get a real good look at the weapons closet. :>
>
> Thanks for the input though...
>
> Da Minotaur

You brought up quite a few good responses yourself, and corrected me
on some points that I was wrong. Thanks

Isbin and Thurmite
Message no. 4
From: steven mancini <mancinis@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 20:22:34 EST
]
]
] SHADE does not comment on magical stuff so you are not talking to SHADE
] Isbin and thurmite comment on magical stuff.

I just hit R)eply. If it says shade said it, then guess that is the
account it came from.

] No they can't unless the sword is in the mages hand or flying around all
] the time it cant see through the sheath. Vision is always required for los
] spells. Very few spells are not los and those that are not are touch. I
] believe we already had the discussion of clairvoyance and you cannot cast
] spells through it.

I think the sheath response begs the question...
Also, I am not too sure I can accept this limitation of "It has
to have eyes to see" argument at all. Statues, as many people
have claimed are the only option for inhabited allies, do not
have eyes, they have their primal matter sculpted to look like
eyes. Also, astral spirits do not ahve eyes... unless of course
your are claiming that when an ally manifests it assumes the
complete biological makeup of the manifested form? I think that
the necessity of eyes for vision in the case of spiritual
creatures is an incorrect assumption.
- If that is the case, would you then concede that it could
see if I sculpted some eyes in the blade?

As for needing LOS, I would claim that it is a real bummer for
Combat spells alone. The ally I have in mind would not be
tossing combat spells anyway. Also, though I have not read the
full statistics on her, there is a female magician in Elven
fire who is blind and who uses Clairvoyance (Zero range) to
cast spells. Lastly, most of the spells the ally would cast
would be touch only, to benefit the wielder.

] I agree you can't hide allies. It provides a wonderful way to
] ground spells onto the mage.

Um... grounding is a real vague concept in this game. But let's
take it one step at a time.

] Grounding Spells into the Mage:

Last time I read allies, they are not a grounding source TO the
mage, but merely pose the same problem that any dual-natured
creature does.

] The ally can't block them:

Why not? Astral combat is astral combat and a spell being grounded
through it is an astral "creature" that is vulnerable to assault
like any other astral entity. That was in the grimoire....

] When he is providing spell defense he can't do anything else like aide
] sorcery.

Why can't the ally do anything else? A magician can perform other
actions while allocating spell defense? Also, I do not think
allies can aide sorcery anyway...

But they can, IMHO (until someone provides a citation to the
contrary), provide spell defense *and* act as the Power foci
for their summoner at the same time. Or provide spell defense,
sustain a spell it cast previously cast. and act as a foci
all at the same time. Or possibly fight and provide spell
defense simultaneously (like a magician can).

] Love to see this sword enter a circle, ward, etc since it
] is always partially active. Dropping those warns the opposition.
]
Once again... this will happen REGARDLESS OF THE ALLY'S FORM.
Any astrally active ally, which is basically ALL allies, will
do this...

] No I love my ally. I just never saw the purpose in limiting him with
] the inhabitation power.

So then your objections here lie from you dislike of Inhabited
Allies or from the sword specifically? I am honestly a little
confused and not trying to sound sarcastic?


] You could not teach it to be a dancing sword since you are not a sword and
] this is closer to unarmed combat than armed combat, but that is not right
] either.

I disagree completely. You can teach an ally any skill you have.
I know how to use a sword to inflict damage. I think the focus
is on the object doing the damage- the sword. I think the sword
could consciously be taught how to wield itself to attack. I would
remind you of the spell *Use (Skill)* which allows a magician to
attack with a sword at a distance, using his/her armed skill. I
realize this is a telekinetic manipulation spell but I think
the theory is the same.

] Allies are wonderful toys, I just don't like the idea of a sword being
] an ally. I do most of the things you have commented on with mine. Some more
] problems with a sword are taking it anywhere with you since it is illegal to
] carry a sword. Anywhere you go the sword will have to be sheathed, and hidden.
] If it does start floating around they are at least going to demand that you
] check it at the door. It can't see much from there even if it does have eyes
]

These are all great claims. I realize that it would be limited in
some instances. However, i am concerned mostly with use during
shadowruns, in which case its form would in no way be more detrimental
than any other inhabited ally. Also:
- It is illegal to carry a sword anytime, so how do those samurai
get away with it?
- The problems faced would be no worse than those when carrying a
weapon foci and yet those exist and are used?


If you do not like the idea of it being a sword, I guess you
would have really hated my original idea of making it the
screaming silver ball from my favorite movie, "Phantasm" ? :)

Da Minotaur
Message no. 5
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:51:33 -0800
] No they can't unless the sword is in the mages hand or flying around all
] the time it cant see through the sheath. Vision is always required for los
] spells. Very few spells are not los and those that are not are touch. I
] believe we already had the discussion of clairvoyance and you cannot cast
] spells through it.

Allies, as astral beings, do not need eyes to see. Humans as corporal beings
do.

>> As for needing LOS, I would claim that it is a real bummer for
>> Combat spells alone. The ally I have in mind would not be
>> tossing combat spells anyway. Also, though I have not read the
>> full statistics on her, there is a female magician in Elven
>> fire who is blind and who uses Clairvoyance (Zero range) to
>> cast spells. Lastly, most of the spells the ally would cast
>> would be touch only, to benefit the wielder.

I don't know if she exist, but if so she is a direct violation of SR rules. Of
course FASA has never been big on following it's own rules.

>> Last time I read allies, they are not a grounding source TO the
>> mage, but merely pose the same problem that any dual-natured
>> creature does.

But weapon foci are.

] You could not teach it to be a dancing sword since you are not a sword and
] this is closer to unarmed combat than armed combat, but that is not right
] either.

Sure you can teach the Sword Ally to be a dancing sword. All you have to do
is learn Dance and then teach it to the ally.

Seriously (not that the above wasn't), a Sword Ally would be a "dancing sword"
be definition. Afterall it is a sword that moves under it's own power. As
for how would the ally attack, it would use it's Reaction just like every other
critter in the world.

===============================================================================
See Ya in Shadows, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
Jason J Carter -- Deep Throat, The X-Files
The Nightstalker Carter@***.EDU
Message no. 6
From: SHADE <MFN6430@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 10:10:30 -0600
> I think the sheath response begs the question...
> Also, I am not too sure I can accept this limitation of "It has
> to have eyes to see" argument at all. Statues, as many people
> have claimed are the only option for inhabited allies, do not
> have eyes, they have their primal matter sculpted to look like
> eyes. Also, astral spirits do not ahve eyes... unless of course
> your are claiming that when an ally manifests it assumes the
> complete biological makeup of the manifested form? I think that
> the necessity of eyes for vision in the case of spiritual
> creatures is an incorrect assumption.
> - If that is the case, would you then concede that it could
> see if I sculpted some eyes in the blade?
>
> As for needing LOS, I would claim that it is a real bummer for
> Combat spells alone. The ally I have in mind would not be
> tossing combat spells anyway. Also, though I have not read the
> full statistics on her, there is a female magician in Elven
> fire who is blind and who uses Clairvoyance (Zero range) to
> cast spells. Lastly, most of the spells the ally would cast
> would be touch only, to benefit the wielder.

If the spirit were astrally active, and for astral perception
you do not need eyes. For physical seeing you would need eyes. That is
why they carve the eyes in the first place. If the spirits don't have
eyes or the equivalent then the have full view in all directions. If not
we might ask the question what would happen if a mage sense linked to this.
This would probably cause at least confusion for a couple of turns every
time you start. Sure lets use clairvoyance for casting spells, now my
mage can cast clair. and cast spells at a range of 14 meters (with ally)
through walls if that is not a screw I don't know what is. This is not even
taking into account an extended spell.

> Um... grounding is a real vague concept in this game. But let's
> take it one step at a time.

>] Grounding Spells into the Mage:
>
> Last time I read allies, they are not a grounding source TO the
> mage, but merely pose the same problem that any dual-natured
> creature does.

Exactly you can ground a spell into a dual natured creature. If it
is an area of effect spell you can hit the whole room you are in with it.
"you are all hit by a fire ball that grounded down the mages ally. Take a
6D please." This will not make the rest of th eparty too happy. This is
why you hide links.

>] The ally can't block them:
>
> Why not? Astral combat is astral combat and a spell being grounded
> through it is an astral "creature" that is vulnerable to assault
> like any other astral entity. That was in the grimoire....

You cannot fight spells cast at you in astral space. A precieving
mage cannot fight spells at all because he is not using his astral initiative
,black book magic section under spells and astral space. The spirit is the
perfect conduit when he is stuck in an inhabited form.

>] When he is providing spell defense he can't do anything else like aide
>] sorcery.
>
> Why can't the ally do anything else? A magician can perform other
> actions while allocating spell defense? Also, I do not think
> allies can aide sorcery anyway...
>
> But they can, IMHO (until someone provides a citation to the
> contrary), provide spell defense *and* act as the Power foci
> for their summoner at the same time. Or provide spell defense,
> sustain a spell it cast previously cast. and act as a foci
> all at the same time. Or possibly fight and provide spell
> defense simultaneously (like a magician can).

good point I had forgotten that spell defense was not exclusive


>] Love to see this sword enter a circle, ward, etc since it
>] is always partially active. Dropping those warns the opposition.
>]
> Once again... this will happen REGARDLESS OF THE ALLY'S FORM.
> Any astrally active ally, which is basically ALL allies, will
> do this...

When a spirit manifests it is not asterally active. It is in the
physical plane.

>] No I love my ally. I just never saw the purpose in limiting him with
>] the inhabitation power.
>
> So then your objections here lie from you dislike of Inhabited
> Allies or from the sword specifically? I am honestly a little
> confused and not trying to sound sarcastic?

I dislike inhabited forms, sword is just more limited than a man
like form.

>] You could not teach it to be a dancing sword since you are not a sword and
>] this is closer to unarmed combat than armed combat, but that is not right
>] either.
>
> I disagree completely. You can teach an ally any skill you have.
> I know how to use a sword to inflict damage. I think the focus
> is on the object doing the damage- the sword. I think the sword
> could consciously be taught how to wield itself to attack. I would
> remind you of the spell *Use (Skill)* which allows a magician to
> attack with a sword at a distance, using his/her armed skill. I
> realize this is a telekinetic manipulation spell but I think
> the theory is the same.

I agree the ally can USE a sword just fine to fight if you teach
him the skill. You are not teaching him how to use a sword, you are trying
to teach him how to use himself in combat. This is a different principle all
togeather. *use (Skill)* is still alloying you to control what is manipulating
the sword you are not the sword itself. Also leverage for this sword would be
a real problem. You could concievably knock it across the room without any
real problem. The sword is real strong, but what is controlling it is it's
3-D movement ability which is not.


> These are all great claims. I realize that it would be limited in
> some instances. However, i am concerned mostly with use during
> shadowruns, in which case its form would in no way be more detrimental
> than any other inhabited ally. Also:
> - It is illegal to carry a sword anytime, so how do those samurai
> get away with it?
> - The problems faced would be no worse than those when carrying a
> weapon foci and yet those exist and are used?

This is why everything has a concealability factor. If you hide it
it adds to the concealibility. Same thing with foci. Mask them if mages
are around. You can't do this if the ally needs to see. It cant see through
what is hiding it even astrally. I have had lots of weapons confiscated at
the door of an establishment. It what didn't get confiscated that made the
difference.


> If you do not like the idea of it being a sword, I guess you
> would have really hated my original idea of making it the
> screaming silver ball from my favorite movie, "Phantasm" ? :)
>
> Da Minotaur

No that wouldn't bother me at all seeing that My ally has a
manifestation for of a flaming ball the size of a basketball :>, or is he that
guy sitting overthere in the corner, sometimes I forget

Isbin and Thurmite(ally)
Message no. 7
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:07:12 -0800
>> If the spirit were astrally active, and for astral perception
>>you do not need eyes. For physical seeing you would need eyes. That is
>>why they carve the eyes in the first place. If the spirits don't have
>>eyes or the equivalent then the have full view in all directions. If not
>>we might ask the question what would happen if a mage sense linked to this.
>>This would probably cause at least confusion for a couple of turns every
>>time you start. Sure lets use clairvoyance for casting spells, now my
>>mage can cast clair. and cast spells at a range of 14 meters (with ally)
>>through walls if that is not a screw I don't know what is. This is not even
>>taking into account an extended spell.

No necesarily. Just because they don't have "eyes" doesn't mean they don't have
to concentration their attention in one direction. Now, I'm not saying they do,
but I can't say they don't.

Reguardless, this would not confuse the mage using sense link since the magician
would be magically attuned to this wierd sort of vision.

No casting spells through Clairvoyance or Sense Link, Period.

>> Exactly you can ground a spell into a dual natured creature. If it
>>is an area of effect spell you can hit the whole room you are in with it.
>>"you are all hit by a fire ball that grounded down the mages ally. Take a
>>6D please." This will not make the rest of th eparty too happy. This is
>>why you hide links.

I'm confused, how does hiding a link hide an ally? The ally is there and thus
can be grounded through.

>> When a spirit manifests it is not asterally active. It is in the
>>physical plane.

BING! Incorrect. Manifesting spirits still exist on the astral plane and in
the most confusing part of the game, still use there force for all attributes
in astral combat. That's right a manifesting spirit has two sets of stats!
One physical and one astral.

===============================================================================
See Ya in Shadows, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
Jason J Carter -- Deep Throat, The X-Files
The Nightstalker Carter@***.EDU
Message no. 8
From: "Patrick D. Little" <pdl@******.NET>
Subject: Swords
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 17:07:16 PDT
I really don't understand this argument about which weapon is better <Katana vs.
European Swords>. The weapons were created with specific requirements in mind. So
IMHO, it's not a question of what weapon is better but a question of what's the
appropriate weapon for the job.

P.S. Since people are starting to use cites, I would be interested in what people who
suggest as reference material? <especially martial arts and archaic weapons>
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:35:57 +0100
SCROSE said on 12:13/12 Mar 98...

> I didn't get a bunch of flames on my comment about rifle and bayonet
> being a footmen's pike which is something of a shock actually.

Why would you be flamed for saying that, and why is it a shock? Bayonets
were invented (<pulls out trumpet and blows it> by the Dutch! <puts away
trumpet and removes earplugs> :) so musketeers could defend themselves
against cavalry charges, thus doing away with the need to have separate
pikemen to protect them. Since the ratio of pikemen to musketeers was
something like 2:1, an army could now equip its former pikemen with
muskets too, and triple its theoretical firepower.

> The importance of HTH combat is often times overlooked in SR but
> sometimes it is the best solution...

Still I somehow don't think many shadowrunners often find themselves in
situations where carrying a rifle with fixed bayonet is a handy thing to
do. Sure, there may be cases, but they don't come up very often IMHO.

> > What type of blade? A kukhri's not too hard to hide under a jacket, let
> > alone a long coat.
>
> Would be rather easy actually as would any of the big knives and/or
> short swords.

It should be easy enough to see how hard it is to hide a knife or sword.
Just find one and try to hide it under your jacket or coat. If you don't
have a combat knife, borrow a meat knife from the kitchen, while for a
sword, you could substitute a meter-long stick.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Why live in the world when you can live in your head?
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: SCROSE <scrose@****.COM>
Subject: Re: swords
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:53:54 -0600
Gurth wrote:
>
> SCROSE said on 12:13/12 Mar 98...
>
<snip>
> > > What type of blade? A kukhri's not too hard to hide under a jacket, let
> > > alone a long coat.
> >
> > Would be rather easy actually as would any of the big knives and/or
> > short swords.
>
> It should be easy enough to see how hard it is to hide a knife or sword.
> Just find one and try to hide it under your jacket or coat. If you don't
> have a combat knife, borrow a meat knife from the kitchen, while for a
> sword, you could substitute a meter-long stick.

IRL I have carried Stiletto's a K-Bar and/or assorted small pistols. I
have lived in what are considered to be the not so nice sections of the
city I live in. I carried a weapon in my jacket most of time and was
ready to use it every time I walked out the door to get into my car.

Short swords are about 50-75cm not 1-1.50m in length a great deal of
difference and long coats can hide quite a lot very nicely.
Message no. 11
From: Wafflemiesters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Swords
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:25:10 -0600
>> A large two hander would have both better damage and reach than an epee, but
>> should probably penalize the combat pool... ((damage level * reach)-str or
>> quickness) for instance, in style similar to heavy armour..

A sheild penalizes the user in melee, too... whats up with that? Many
people fought just fine with sheilds! If the heavy blade is harder to
attack with, it is also harder to parry- would you make some adjustment
for that as well? (Of course, having reach 2 does all that and more...)

> I disagree. What if all I learned how to fight with was a bulking
>two-handed sword (the MacLoud family sword in "Highlander" springs to
>mind)? I should be penelized for using the sword I trained with, but
>not a rapier? It's unbalanced... game-wise, I mean. <g>

If you trained with an Armor Cracker of a greatsword, you'd likey have
and edge wepons concentration and a greatsword specialization, so you'd
be reletively weak with a rapier. Thecombatpool penalty would have to be
pretty steap to affect you fighting.
The proposed Combat pool penalty would not affect most people who would
actually use a greatsword. When we had one come into play unexpectedly,
we said it did str+4 m and had 2 reach. Anybody with STR or quickness
over 4 would lose no combat pool with the poposed rule- and the guy
using it had over 8 in both. It was a really effective weapon, and if
not so damn bulky, would be worth having on hand for spirits and armored
targets.

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about swords, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!