| From: | "Dark Thought Publications." <JEK5313@*****.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Well. . If you've made up your mind. .. |
| Date: | Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:36:11 CET |
long, involved _response_ to an intelligent post. My comments are in
traditional decker style, Nightstalker's are bracketed in -- Flare]
>>>>>[Nightstalker:
Seems you've made up your mind. However, I would like to exercise my
right to disagree, or at least to poke holes in your existing logic structure.
:) ]<<<<<
] I must however maintain my contention that it can be done. The reason being.
>>>>>[Firstly, I thought that you were arguing that it COULD NOT be done.
Did I
make a mistake?]<<<<<
]1) Despite what everyone has said, no one has touched, or even mentioned, the
] fact that the Grimoire says the only what to destroy a quickening is
through
] astral combat or dispelling. Grounding is never mentioned in the context
] of quickening in the rules. Since grounding through a focus destroyes that
] focus, that same would be true for quickening, but grounding is not a way
] to destroy a quickening.
>>>>>[The idea, as expressed, was that a quickening was simply more butch
than
a spell lock. Also, the way to get rid of a spell lock (read: one of the ways)
is to attack the physical portion of the link. A quickening, uncontestibly, has
no such portion and, as such is false, you cannot kill the quickning by simply
routing some more energy down it.]<<<<<
]2) The rules never state that quickening is a focus, but the grounding rules
] are entiled "Attaking through a Focus".
>>>>>[Er. . . Don't have my books handy. I'll leave this for someone else.
Anyone? Bueller? :) ]<<<<<
]3) The Tom Dowd says excuse is weak and feabile for several reasons.
] A) It was fine when there was just Grimoire I, but if it was Shadowrun fact
] it would be in Grimoire II! Since Grimoire II never says what Dowd said,
] what he said can be nothing more than a punt.
>>>>>[Sorry to use the "BUZZ" on you--really! but I must. When
was the last
time that FASA got _all_ of the really important parts to everyone right in
_anything?_ The correct answer is: NEVER. Carter, I have to say that I have
taken a real liking to ya, but FASA has always offered corrections and
elaborations, where necessary, free-of-charge. Perhaps, now that the issue has
been brought to his attention, as demanding _more_ attention, we will see their
position come out in some sort of errata, or another addition. NAH!!!! I
almost believed it, but somehow I just don't think so.]<<<<<
] B) He states that it takes a physical spell to ground through a quickening,
] but the reason it takes a physical spell to ground through a focus is
] because you can only attack unliving targets with a physical spell. If
] the spell is quickened on a person, it reasons that a mana spell would
] work on that quickening.
>>>>>[Ok. If that don't work for you, lemmie try my hand at rationaliz. .
.er
_figuring out_ how things work. A physical spell is required to go down a
spell lock because the other end has a physical link. Correct? Well, you
could also look at it as that the locked spell has to mind, no true life-force,
and so a mana spell would be ineffectual for that reason as well. Weeeellll, a
quickening _also_ has no mind against which a mana spell could strike, nor any
true life-force, and as such it can also only ground down a physical spell.
While it can be argued that the quickening becomes a pseudo-entity when
activated, due to the karma spent on it, it is not a true entity, and therefore
requires a physical spell to effect it.]<<<<<
] C) He says that area effect spells would only hurt the possessor of the
] quickening, but following the quickening is like a focus line of thought
] there is no good reason why the spell wouldn't explode outward like it
] does with a focus. I think he was just trying to keep a little game
] balance.
>>>>>[As before, a quickening it simply more butch than a simple spell
lock. It
is quite possible that he was seeking a little game balance. I'm sure that those
who have invested as much karma as it takes to initiate will appreciate it.
However, using another session of Do-It-Yourself Creative Rationalization, let
me propose this: that a spell link simply allows a caster to maintain a link to
astral space whilst me friend the mage fires 'is pop-gun. A quickening, on the
other hand, maintains _it's own_ link to the astral, and as such could be
considered a pseudo-entity in its own right, by another logic structure that I
shan't go into here. Regardless of that, however, is the fact that the caster
now only has a tie to the quickening _if_it_is_quickened_on_HIM._ (I refuse to
be PC!!!!! Can't make me do it!!!) As the quickening is, if you accept any of
my earlier logic, a conduit for physical spells only, and only to a single point
so small as to defy description, there can be no area effects from that point
due to some hermetic mechanics also not discussed here, but available upon
request.]<<<<<
]4) The now imfamous Nightfox argument. A quickening is a spell and you can't
] cast a spell at a spell.
>>>>>If you accept that logic as fact, rather than my own brand:
ABSOLUTELY.
Wouldn't make any sense, and would make astral combat a real wench
otherwise.]<<<<<
] Sorry boys, but this one doen't fly,
>>>>>[It ain't _supposed_ to FLY: just _sit there._]<<<<<
] Jason J Carter
] The Nightstalker
--Flare <NULLSIG COURTESY OF DOOM>
Dark Thought Publications & Doom Technologies, Inc.
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
