| From: | Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? |
| Date: | Mon, 11 May 1998 12:48:33 -0400 |
|> Sent: May 11, 1998 2:07 AM
|> Subject: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?
Actually, its not you, just one or two people.
|> Wow. Not the reaction I expected at all.
|> I mean I've seen some of your websites, and watched a few of you on
|> IRC - guess I expected a little more open mindedness.
Er, most of the responses you got did not indicate closemindness. Your
ideas were considered. Remember open-minded does _NOT_ mean automatic
acception of ideas, it means that one fairly considers and idea.
|> 1) I am sick - Well, yes, I suppose I am. I hereby freely admit it.
Good, 'cause like many of us, you are sick. Not that there's anything
wrong with that.
[Origin of your regen omitted]
The problem is _not_ that people thought you were a shifter, but that you
have regeneration. There is a huge debate about whether or not people who
have regeneration would be able to have cyberwear. I never read any FASA
Shadowrun rules about regeneration so I cannot judge based on their words.
To me, unless FASA states it somewhere, it becomes a matter of
interpretation on how regeneration knows how to repair the body. If one has
a power that completely repairs ANY and ALL damage to the body, then it
makes sense that you cannot have cyberwear, because being foreign to the
body, it would get expelled as the body repaired itself. Same is true of
things like tatoos, since they are a form of damage.
ON the other hand, if regeneration can be controlled by the will of the
subject, then it would be possible to "tell" the power not to repair the
damage caused by the cyberwear and therefore keep it.
If someone could quote me the rules on the power of regeneration as it
appears in the rules, I'd be appreciative and more informed.
|> 3) Flesh removed from the body is dead - Where'd that idea come from?
I'll grant you that. That was an error on my part, it does take time for
the flesh to die.
|> 4) Removed flesh has no aura - where'd that come from? Certainly not
That too is a judgement call, since FASA never says.
|> 5) I "violated a sacred trust between player and GM by going around
|> Loche 7's back and posting this to the list" - Hmmm, kinda hard to go
|> behind his back when he's on this list isn't it? As for this "sacred
As I told Alfredo, this is bullshit. I believe he meant to say, "Go above
the head of your G.M." This too is bullshit, since the list does _not_ have
any authority over Loche 7.
|> 6)Physical objects don't damage astral objects - Again, this sounds
|> like a house rule to me. However, I recognize that Fasa has never been
No, sorry, wrong. Astral beings are capable of moving through almost all
non-living matter, which means that this matter does _not_ interact with
astral beings, so how could it hurt them? Not a house rule at all, simply an
interpretation of the rules as given by FASA. You tell me ANYWHERE that they
even indicate that you could take a brick and injure an Astral being by
throwing the brick at them.
|> 7)"Range combat cannot do damage to an astral being [though there
|> might be a few exceptions to this rule they don't matter here].
|> Hmm, so Distance Strike, Banishing, and Combat Spells, (All ranged
|> combat) aren't effective against spirits? (Astral beings, in case you
Your assine sarcasm is not appreciated. First of all, I was not
considering spells in range combat, since it was, to me, obvious that spells
affect astral beings and didn't need to be mentioned. As for distance
strike, I stand corrected, well, okay, I sit corrected. Banishings I guess
could be considered combat, but come on, you should have realized what I
meant by rannged combat.
A note, where is distance strike mentioned? I really do not recall that
one, but it is good. However, irrelevant to our discussion.
Katt Freyson
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
