Manic Typist

Re: Supernatural Special Forces Exactly, as long as they have taken some sort of measures to account for close combat, even if it is martial arts to get out of holds etc (as I suggested). Ok, that's fine. Now that I know that is one of your rules, I'll try to focus any further tips along those lines. Specialized weaponry isn't just extremely effective at killing these things, it is literally required by the laws of reality. Worst case scenario, for nasty situations in isolated areas: Fuel-Air bomb. I've ALWAYS wanted to see one of these used in a game hehe.

Re: Supernatural Special Forces Two things: One, on the close combat: Of course, it is a last resort. Anyone who prefers to go with a blade as opposed to a gun, against paranormals, is either really dangerous, or really stupid. If they are on YOUR side, then they are both. However, they are only dangerous to YOU. On the other hand, I think it would be incredibly reckless for any team that is specifically established for these sort of nasties to not prepare for the very likely scenario of close combat. Second: I'm sorry, I guess your vampires must be quite something, because, at point blank range a vampire could be reduced to literalt MIST (red tinted) by a claymore. It's not that I can't buy the possibility of their survival. The angle, how close they were, and luck could easily avoid doing enough damage to get the perma kill. I am just wondering if you are giving this little weapon its full credit. After all, in your world, if I blow a vampire's head of with normal ammo (and I do mean clean off), is it dead? I guess I just need a guage of how much one of your vamp's can regenrate, so that I can better suggest what might be useful to fight them.

Re: Focus on visibility Ok, now what about using a focus for a different power while invisible? I can see my Amulet of Enhanced Invisibility glowing before I (along with my amulet) disappear, because, that makes the most sense to me. I shouldn't have to build the item to become invisible to, especially considering all that it does in this case is remove the fringe. What if I activate my Ring of Teleportation WHILE I'm invisible? For that matter, what if I wear Bracers of Strength under a long sleeved shirt? These are OAF, that can, under certain circumstances, be IAF etc. What do you guys think about this?

Re: Focus on visibility

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... My fantasy group is plane hopping, and to make up for a minor transgression by one of my party members (apparently attacking the giant spider covered in plate mail wasn't a great idea) we had to do a minor task. It was actually remarkably easy. We went and fetched some giant rubies out of a crack that was too small for the spiders. However, later, we learned that these rubies were in fact the deposited fertilization element that the "Mother" spiders needed to consume to lay a clutch of eggs. Upon which I said... "You guys realize we've found the motherload, right?"

Re: Focus on visibility But what about things that are tied to or affectd by invisibility? Say an amulet that removes the fringe on Invisibility to normal sight? Or a teleportation ring that you use while invisible to normal sight?

Re: Supernatural Special Forces Don't forget claymores packed with silver ball bearings..... though at close range, regular would kill pretty much anything, supernatural or not. Still, silver to be safe eh? Also, don't forget close combat. Silver chain mesh armors designed to deal with the typically slashing attacks of claws and fangs, rather than severe punctures, but perhaps reinforced with partial plating in case of an old schooler with a sword. Speaking of swords, troops would probably be trained in a more old school style of fighting anyway, and would want to use good blades (machetes, swords, hand axes) etc as a backup (last resort) weapon. Also, silver knuckles, silver spurs, and some martial arts (for getting out of holds, causing one hit stuns etc).

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... Ah, sounds a bit like Ragnarok, held by Dagorhir fighters. Less refined, but perhaps equally fun.

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... What is the Pennisc War? A LARP thing or something?

Re: Affects Solid World Well, under my theory, then the bowling ball remains solid throughout all of this, and thus is 100% noticeable to all involved. Then, it comes crashing down on the guy's foot, if he doesn't move it.

Re: Affects Solid World Simply say that since the weapon was put into the desolid state by your shifting planes or whatnot........ that it cannot shift back without you doing so. It's not a matter of you "keeping" it desolid, it's a matter of you CHANGING it's very nature, from "solid" to "desolid." Of course, in order to do THIS, you must COMPLETELY go back. However, this leaves the interesting possibility of the character securing something in plain sight by simply going desolid with it in his hand, and solid with it not. If you think the player would abuse it, then simply say it would dissipate after too long in that state without the character to maintain its coherence.

Re: Power Dialing: SFX or Mechanic? Well, logically, no, they really shouldn't be able to "pull a bullet." However, I was just throwing out an idea. To me, the bullet is just a SFX. So, the swapping in of a single round is a decent SFX explanation for "pulling a bullet." So, yeah, I think that could work well enough. If they don't mind taking a full phase to do all of this. Maybe even a second one to actually fire...

Re: Power Dialing: SFX or Mechanic? Perhaps it could be symbolized to the character manually loading in a special, less leathal round. Like a Glazer Safety round...... or something. Although those things are wicked at close range. Make it cost a full phase to load in this single shot, and shoot. That's your disad.

Re: Ironpaw: Modeling and Practical Concerns Maybe he had another set of prosthetic hands made.. you know...... without the sharpness?

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords: Reboot Darwinian evolution in the superhero community! Haha!

Re: What skill would you use to see if someone is lying? You would know how likely it would be for the person you are talking to to actually TALK to the mayor. Low level flunky? Not gonna happen. Mid to high range? What paperwork is involved? How often are meetings held? How are these meetings run, so that you can tell if the subject is even likely to come up, etc?

Re: What skill would you use to see if someone is lying? I think all lies are covered by seduction. Basically, the whole point of the skill is to persuade someone. Whether it be to like you, sleep with you, die for you, or believe you.

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords: Reboot Some really good ideas are starting to emerge...

Re: Translator Badges Thank you.

Re: Dimension Brainstorming: The Dimension Of Lost Stuff Have Ozymandias's amazing works be there too! They weren't destroyed! They were lost!

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords: Reboot Why can't some of the aliens just eat the dead bodies? What?

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords? One brief note: I did not call you intellectually arrogant. Please do not make up accusations such as that. If you prefer, consider that one of my "hot buttons." One final note: I am sorry that you choose to interpret my arguments and my words in the way you do. Obviously, we have a very fundamental difference in world view. But, hey, that's ok. Variety is the spice of life. I am sorry to have wasted both your and my time. "You go your way, let me go mine." Surely, these forums are big enough for the two of us. Side note: Dbsousa, I never meant to mangle your thread like this. I am sorry.

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords? Actually, even if you had addressed it in what I deemed a sufficient manner, I wouldn't be ignoring it, because as I posted (but you pretended not to notice) was that I didn't RECALL you doing so, and that my memory might be wrong. So, thank you for refreshing me with your counterarguments. First, I would like to point out the inherent contradiction between "irrational" and "intelligent." No intelligent being would willingly be irrational. Thus, if a being is capable of being intelligent AND irrational at the same time (despite the fact that they might otherwise be concluded to be mutually exclusive, we will accept the hypothesis that they are not exclusive, if that is ok with you), that must mean that the intelligent being does not have control, or at least complete control, over their own irrationality. That means that the being does not have control over HOW that irrationality is exhibited. Thus, the being does not have complete control over how they decide to act, since I think it is fair to say (feel free to disagree) their irrationality will be manifested through their actions. Thus, we cannot make presuppositions to know if an intelligent, irrational individual could restrain themselves from doing the monumentally "stupid," because prediciting how they will behave is essentially impossible. Don't you love free will? Second, your entire premise devalues (utterly, and without justification) other people's world views. You are basing your arguments from your desire to continue to live, and the value of life. Thus, these individuals actions are stupid because they conflict with this desire (which, in all honesty, most people do share, including myself). However, not all people value their lives, or value their lives above everything else. So, it is a rational act to them to kill themselves, if it meets their criterion for whatever IS the purpose of their life. I can see one significant attack my argument here, but I will wait to see if you spot it on your own before I address it. Third, you have not provided the standard by which we should judge this sanity curve, except perhaps your implied value of life, which I have already addressed as possibly being unjust and therefore unacceptable as a value standard, since it dismisses all other value standards without consideration. Also, you say major-league nuclear powers, not just nuclear powers, so you are now allowing for the presence of these rather suspect individuals to have nuclear weapons (in the argument) but still don't consider them very important. I find this curious, especially considering the major threat posed to your value (life) by ANY nuclear armament. Fourth (in response to your edit)- You never defined leader. So, I can define it however the hell I want, and you really don't have much of a right to complain, because you didn't provide a standard to clarify what YOU were specifying in the question. However, this does not really address the meat of your post, like your attack failed to do with mine. Allow me to move on to... ah, here it is: I not only addressed your question, but I addressed it in two different possible lights. The first was in the most literal aspect as you asked it, which I considered least important, because I figured that me finangling your words while ignoring your intent would have been nonproductive at best, and utterly inane at best. However, I covered it "just in case." Second, I addressed the ARGUMENT behind your quesiton, which is far more important than the question itself. Since I believe I have successfully negated that argument, and you have actually failed to respond to my counters or rebuild your own stance, the question itself and any further questions stemming from said argument are irrelevant, because I've addressed the issue entirely. Anytime you ask the question, or a variation thereof, you can just look back to my response and apply my answer as to how you would deal with it. If you want to continue with the question, you need to resolve this conflict between your lack of offense and your desire to continue pushing the same point as if it still stood. Edit: Finally, I was reluctant to post in this thread again for fear of this situation deteriorating even further. To me, you seem to be trying to attack my character or my intelligence with your words by implying that I am not giving your arguments serious thought or ignoring them entirely. I do not appreciate this, but then again I don't appreciate the Mona Lisa either, so maybe that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do not understand why you seem to be reacting in what appears (to me) such a personal manner. The only thing that I can conclude is that I, or perhaps BDH, has somehow offended you. If it is the first and I have managed to offend you, please accept my apologies. At no point have I deliberately tried to cause you grief or harm, but if I have then I certainly regret doing so. People's feelings are more important than some idle debate on a web forum. If it is the second, please take a second to recognize that I am not BDH, and thus your taking out your anger/frustration with him out on me is not only illogical, but it is also improper. Your grievance with another party should not cause you to attack me, who had nothing to do with said party. Now, perhaps I am wrong, and you are not in the least bit upset, and I am merely misinterpreting the tone with which you have been communicating. If this is the case, please accept my (new) apology of misrepresenting you and your arguments in a manner that is not representative of their intent or content.

Re: Translator Badges Why is Universal Translator marked with a STOP warning?

Re: How to Overthrow the Alien Overlords? *Sigh* No, his point about how leaders can be incredibly irrational, like anyone else. You haven't actually addressed this. I "admit" this because, to be perfectly honest, I am uncomfortable with the idea of calling these people "leaders" even though they really are. Not only do they have the devotion of thousands (if not millions) across the globe, they also are capable of drastically altering (and in essence) dictating world policy via their actions. Thus, they really ARE world leaders, just not in the sense YOU might have meant it, which is why I fudged. Further, while, yes, your original question was about hating Muslims, I have two response: First, that these people view all those who do not follow their teachings as infidels, regardless of their proclaimed religions. Thus, they would hate all Muslims, but attempt to classify them as traitors or infidels. Because, obviously, these leaders are not truly of the religion they preach, or they would not be doing what they are doing. This meets your criterion. Second: I was addressing the actual point of the question as to how it supported your argument. So, IF you buy my analysis, your question is irrelevant because you no longer have a position to argue from and thus POSE the question.