Are there any TW weapons which cast Annihilate?

[Cyber-Knight]

I was just wondering if this existed in the game. If not, is it possible to create some kind of TW weapon which casts the spell Annihilate from Federation of Magic (pg. 158)?

[eliakon]

I was just wondering if this existed in the game. If not, is it possible to create some kind of TW weapon which casts the spell Annihilate from Federation of Magic (pg. 158)?

There is no canonical item that casts this yet.
There has been some discussion of it in various flavors of power levels
There is also a couple mentions in the design section about the appropriateness of base units and side effects and Annihilate was one of the spells mentioned.

[Cyber-Knight]

What's the best source to go to for reference on creating TW items?

[Mack]

Is it possible? Yes.

Would your GM have to be on drugs to allow it? Most likely.

[Mack]

What's the best source to go to for reference on creating TW items?

Rifts Ultimate Edition.

[eliakon]

I have found Annihilate is a great spell for TW devices.....
....if it is the right device.
I had one TW build a railroad gun sized artillery piece that flung Annihilate spheres dozens of miles for boat loads of PPE....it was fielded in a SoT game.
I had another build one as part of a TW space ship heavy weapons system.

Annihilate small arms though are....yeah.....

[Cyber-Knight]

Hah, yeah, I don't mean TW handguns. At the smallest, I'm thinking a TW Glitter Boy. Probably more like a giant TW robot.

[eliakon]

I would, personally, suggest looking at the books to see what sorts of other weapons are out there that do similar damage and scale appropriately. This applies to any sort of TW device.
In the case of Annihilate, that is the one super tank in Triax 2 and some heavy starship weapons in Phase World which suggests that TW weapons should be of similar scale to do similar damage.

[Cyber-Knight]

Probably, although IMO, the damage scale in Rifts is wonky to me. Just looking at something like the Devastator in the NGR (or whatever that ginormous robot is called if not that), it's hard for me to imagine it killing Gargoyles at a respectable clip. Those guns on it really should be one-shoting swathes of Gargoyles. So for me, that's the kind of weapon which should be doling out 2d4x100 MD per shot with a blast radius to take out multiple targets, but that's probably a topic best left for another thread.

[taalismn]

Hah, yeah, I don't mean TW handguns. At the smallest, I'm thinking a TW Glitter Boy. Probably more like a giant TW robot.

Soon, so very soon! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!...I mean, no, not that I can think of...

(Well, now I'm going to have to look into building one...probably expensive as hell, but hey, the fun potential? HUUUUGGGGGEEEEEEEE. )

[Axelmania]

Devastator is a walking LRM batch with a long range gun to snipe swarms as they approach w fortified position.

[ShadowLogan]

I was just wondering if this existed in the game. If not, is it possible to create some kind of TW weapon which casts the spell Annihilate from Federation of Magic (pg. 158)?

There might be something in a Rifter or Siege on Tolkeen book (long shot), the problem is that not all TW devices in the books list the required spells to produce them. For example the Nova Rifle (pg114) or Starfire Pulse Cannon (pg116) in FedOfMagic (non-revised) might use it in modified form (which a TW can do w/ or w/o other spells per RUE rules), but they don't tell use what spells to use. So it could be there if one tried to reverse engineer one of these, but there could be other combinations that work to.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Once at the end of a game an infamous GM was handing out end of session treasure and I ended up with a Annihilation Ring: Three times per day. This is the only time I've seen a magic item (traditional or TW) to have been enchanted with the Annihilate spell during my time playing PB's games.

Yes, the other are right. If someone was to use the TW creation rules the magic item created would have to be some sort of huge cannon. Because of the Form following Function clause of the text.
Where if made through a traditional enchantment an Annihilate magic item the item has fewer F/F limitations. But these limitations are more what it is expected for a magic item to be...(e.g.: rings, wands, staves, etc...) and how many times per day they will work/function. Even these "expected"limitations are not set in stone with traditional magic items.

[Mack]

Annihilate is one the spells that's ripe for abuse with the TW rules in RUE.
-- Since it doesn't really have a "per level" component to the spell, it can be made as Device Level 1 and greatly reduce the overall costs.
-- The stone to power it is only 5,000 credits per carat, making it not too difficult to add carats and bring down the Activation Costs.

Here's a quick version just to illustrate how it could be abused.

Device Level 1
Spells - Annihilate
Activation: 20 PPE
Construction: 400 PPE & 40 hours
Gems carats - 15 Lapis Lazuli
Build Cost: 79000 credits

On the flip side, can you imagine the role-playing needed to build and test the prototypes? I don't think any sane TW would attempt this in his workshop, or near any place civilized. Think about something like when the Mythbusters would go to the bomb range, only with something that can incinerate everything in the area.

[Alrik Vas]

Large field artillery, towed or giant robot mounted, seems to be the form following function on this spell, yeah.

Though, to me, the biggest abuse of the TW rules is built into the rules: lowering the device level. It has only beneficial effects on items using non-level based spells.

[dragonfett]

Once at the end of a game an infamous GM was handing out end of session treasure and I ended up with a Annihilation Ring: Three times per day. This is the only time I've seen a magic item (traditional or TW) to have been enchanted with the Annihilate spell during my time playing PB's games.

Yes, the other are right. If someone was to use the TW creation rules the magic item created would have to be some sort of huge cannon. Because of the Form following Function clause of the text.
Where if made through a traditional enchantment an Annihilate magic item the item has fewer F/F limitations. But these limitations are more what it is expected for a magic item to be...(e.g.: rings, wands, staves, etc...) and how many times per day they will work/function. Even these "expected"limitations are not set in stone with traditional magic items.

I don't feel that any TW weapon that incorporated Annihilate NEEDS to be some huge power armor cannon, it think one could be made from a mini-missile launcher such as the Coalitions CR-1 or a grenade launcher that fires in bursts (such as the Wellington Industries WI-20).

In the case of the WI-20, I would design it so that it only dealt the damage that Annihilate does when firing in long bursts and uses up all charges.

[Axelmania]

On the flip side, can you imagine the role-playing needed to build and test the prototypes? I don't think any sane TW would attempt this in his workshop, or near any place civilized. Think about something like when the Mythbusters would go to the bomb range, only with something that can incinerate everything in the area.

Well, a god who is a TW could attempt it sanely since they could survive it, like the ones in Pantheons. Some dragons and Lizard Mages could also do it pretty safely.

Someone like K'zaa probably has this in his private arsenal, he has 100 more MDC than required to survive a maximum damage roll from a direct hit from one of those things, barring damage-multipliers from natural 20s or ley lines.

One thing about Annihilate that we might be overlooking in making guns out of it: the spell isn't designed to fire an energy orb, it's designed to create one which is then hand-propelled by the caster.

If that requirement is removed, it's going to require some modifications.

[flatline]

Annihilate sling-shot?

[Blue_Lion]

I created TW single use rocket launchers that shoot it in a game based of the AT-4, Also TW Annihilate roads for the Iron hamer tanks cannon. But officially there is no weapon that recreates its affect.

[drewkitty ~..~]

snip...
Yes, the other are right. If someone was to use the TW creation rules the magic item created would have to be some sort of huge cannon. Because of the Form following Function clause of the text.
...snip

I don't feel that any TW weapon that incorporated Annihilate NEEDS to be some huge power armor cannon, it think one could be made from a mini-missile launcher such as the Coalitions CR-1 or a grenade launcher that fires in bursts (such as the Wellington Industries WI-20).

In the case of the WI-20, I would design it so that it only dealt the damage that Annihilate does when firing in long bursts and uses up all charges.

Huge being a relative term, with the small arms version being no smaller then a starfire rifle and the PA/Bot version being about as big as a Boomgun.

With the Caveat that the small arms version is limited in the damage rating, range and payload. While the PA/Bot version is not limited, and can be connected to the PA's/Bot's magic power core to power it.

[Nox Equites]

Well you need Annihilate, Impervious to Energy, Energy Bolt and a million in materials for the gems and the 8 inch or larger artillery piece. That's a good start.

[Glistam]

This was a fun conversation regarding Annihilate TW devices.

[ShadowLogan]

Annihilate is one the spells that's ripe for abuse with the TW rules in RUE.
-- Since it doesn't really have a "per level" component to the spell, it can be made as Device Level 1 and greatly reduce the overall costs.
-- The stone to power it is only 5,000 credits per carat, making it not too difficult to add carats and bring down the Activation Costs.

While the "per level" component to the spell doesn't influence the damage it will do, it does influence the range at which it can be "thrown", and a Device Level determines the "level at which the devices functions" (per RUE pg132), which to me means it determines the power of the spell and not the level of the caster. So there is some benefit to raising the Device Level.


I also have to wonder if the proper form of an Annihilate Spell would in fact not be artillery/gun, but rather an explosive device, which if true would essentially turn it into a single use item. Which if true would look like:
As a Single-Use Device Level 1 would only cost 5500credits (+ 1 carrot gem) to build in 30hours for 600PPE.

It doesn't have re-usability and it costs slightly more PPE to build, but it can be made quicker and for less PPE with just an extra carrot of the required gem. As a grenade it would be thrown farther and better bonus to strike IINM.

[Blue_Lion]

Annihilate is one the spells that's ripe for abuse with the TW rules in RUE.
-- Since it doesn't really have a "per level" component to the spell, it can be made as Device Level 1 and greatly reduce the overall costs.
-- The stone to power it is only 5,000 credits per carat, making it not too difficult to add carats and bring down the Activation Costs.

While the "per level" component to the spell doesn't influence the damage it will do, it does influence the range at which it can be "thrown", and a Device Level determines the "level at which the devices functions" (per RUE pg132), which to me means it determines the power of the spell and not the level of the caster. So there is some benefit to raising the Device Level.


I also have to wonder if the proper form of an Annihilate Spell would in fact not be artillery/gun, but rather an explosive device, which if true would essentially turn it into a single use item. Which if true would look like:
As a Single-Use Device Level 1 would only cost 5500credits (+ 1 carrot gem) to build in 30hours for 600PPE.

It doesn't have re-usability and it costs slightly more PPE to build, but it can be made quicker and for less PPE with just an extra carrot of the required gem. As a grenade it would be thrown farther and better bonus to strike IINM.

Thing is you are thinking of it like a scroll or talisman that just cast the spell as is. TW does not have that limitation, if the spell was say built into a launched peace of tech like a mortar round or canon shell or self propelled like a missile the range goes up. If you chain it with another spell for range the range goes up. By chaining or creating a tech to give it range you over come the thrown range. So it can be set as a level 1 and put in a canon shell or missile to give it range. TW combines aspects of both tech and magic in many ways and can create results that neither tech or magic can match.

(That high lights 1 of 3 fundamental problems I have with the TW guide in RUE, to me the gems should be set by spell level not cast level.)

[Alrik Vas]

Yup annihilation munitions world totally work. I.wouldn't want to be the one guarding that armory, though.

[Blue_Lion]

Yup annihilation munitions world totally work. I.wouldn't want to be the one guarding that armory, though.

There is allot of expensive stuff in an armory.

[taalismn]

On the flip side, can you imagine the role-playing needed to build and test the prototypes? I don't think any sane TW would attempt this in his workshop, or near any place civilized. Think about something like when the Mythbusters would go to the bomb range, only with something that can incinerate everything in the area.

Like in the Gate manga....THE world's premiere center of magic scholarship has a research building surrounded by thick walls and berms, and seems to be always surrounded by smoking rubble from students' and faculty members' experiments.
Rifts Earth...the wizard works are either surrounded by heavily-cratered barrens, or use a pocket universe(especially if the mage is particularly powerful and feeling cagey about leaking any of his secret research).

[ShadowLogan]

Thing is you are thinking of it like a scroll or talisman that just cast the spell as is. TW does not have that limitation, if the spell was say built into a launched peace of tech like a mortar round or canon shell or self propelled like a missile the range goes up. If you chain it with another spell for range the range goes up. By chaining or creating a tech to give it range you over come the thrown range. So it can be set as a level 1 and put in a canon shell or missile to give it range. TW combines aspects of both tech and magic in many ways and can create results that neither tech or magic can match.

I agree it can be setup as part of a spell chain, but it if you are putting into a round/shell/missile you are essentially make a single use item. You'd have to put it into the launcher to avoid the one-use setup IMHO. The spell's range could influence when the round/shell/missile goes off though, at least that is how I see it, so even putting into the projectile itself, it is still a single use item and I see the "range" as a "timer".

I would think that in order to put it into a weapon launcher itself (like a gun, cannon, etc) you would need other spells in the chain in order to work properly, not I have a BFG so I just need Annihilate, when other examples of ranged weapons use more than one spell (IIRC) when said list is available.

[Glistam]

Thing is you are thinking of it like a scroll or talisman that just cast the spell as is. TW does not have that limitation, if the spell was say built into a launched peace of tech like a mortar round or canon shell or self propelled like a missile the range goes up. If you chain it with another spell for range the range goes up. By chaining or creating a tech to give it range you over come the thrown range. So it can be set as a level 1 and put in a canon shell or missile to give it range. TW combines aspects of both tech and magic in many ways and can create results that neither tech or magic can match.

I agree it can be setup as part of a spell chain, but it if you are putting into a round/shell/missile you are essentially make a single use item. You'd have to put it into the launcher to avoid the one-use setup IMHO. The spell's range could influence when the round/shell/missile goes off though, at least that is how I see it, so even putting into the projectile itself, it is still a single use item and I see the "range" as a "timer".

I would think that in order to put it into a weapon launcher itself (like a gun, cannon, etc) you would need other spells in the chain in order to work properly, not I have a BFG so I just need Annihilate, when other examples of ranged weapons use more than one spell (IIRC) when said list is available.

Of course. Here's the spells I would consider for such a device: Annihilate as the primary, and both Sub-Particle Acceleration and Impenetrable Wall of Force for secondary spells. Maybe Invulnerability too. If it was a single-shot item, you could probably replace Wall of Force with Wall of Defense and you wouldn't really need Sub-Particle Acceleration.

[Axelmania]

What happens if you try to hit something with this spell beyond its range? Picturing someone flying overhead and dropping Annihilation Orbs from miles up. Does it fizzle out? Or just explode when it reaches the range max? Take strike penalties like with firearms?

[Glistam]

Strike penalties. There's no reason to believe the rules for firing beyond the listed range of your weapon only apply to non-magical weapons.

[Blue_Lion]

Thing is you are thinking of it like a scroll or talisman that just cast the spell as is. TW does not have that limitation, if the spell was say built into a launched peace of tech like a mortar round or canon shell or self propelled like a missile the range goes up. If you chain it with another spell for range the range goes up. By chaining or creating a tech to give it range you over come the thrown range. So it can be set as a level 1 and put in a canon shell or missile to give it range. TW combines aspects of both tech and magic in many ways and can create results that neither tech or magic can match.

I agree it can be setup as part of a spell chain, but it if you are putting into a round/shell/missile you are essentially make a single use item. You'd have to put it into the launcher to avoid the one-use setup IMHO. The spell's range could influence when the round/shell/missile goes off though, at least that is how I see it, so even putting into the projectile itself, it is still a single use item and I see the "range" as a "timer".

I would think that in order to put it into a weapon launcher itself (like a gun, cannon, etc) you would need other spells in the chain in order to work properly, not I have a BFG so I just need Annihilate, when other examples of ranged weapons use more than one spell (IIRC) when said list is available.

Again that is a limit you applying not inherent to TW. We have TW guns that shoot spells well beyond there max range.

Here is how I see it working the round is charged and cast the spell on impact. Thus the spell travels .1 inches to the target making the spell range irrelvent.(or the spell is cast and the round holds it does not throw it until impact)

By the guide line of TW it is entirely possible to make such a device but most TW lack access tot he spell needed to create it. (TW falls under the GM approval category but technically there is nothing stopping in other than you need a mage/psi or trained gunner.)
Done right TW should rarely be using just one spell to make a device but at times the canned single use spell is helpful.

[eliakon]

What happens if you try to hit something with this spell beyond its range? Picturing someone flying overhead and dropping Annihilation Orbs from miles up. Does it fizzle out? Or just explode when it reaches the range max? Take strike penalties like with firearms?

fizzles. Spells have a set range, not an effective range.

[Axelmania]

In this case though you've summoned an orb of anti-matter and magical forces are containing it. The anti-matter is a physical thing so it wouldn't just disappear, so I'm thinking maybe explode at terminal range. Compared to other stuff like call lightning where the damage is magically created energy which would fizzle.

[eliakon]

In this case though you've summoned an orb of anti-matter and magical forces are containing it. The anti-matter is a physical thing so it wouldn't just disappear, so I'm thinking maybe explode at terminal range. Compared to other stuff like call lightning where the damage is magically created energy which would fizzle.

Or the magic containment forces dissipate the anti-matter, or send it back, or any number of other things.
The problem with this logic is that it extends to a lot of OTHER spells....and then opens up the slippery slope of continuing to extend the range of spells based on an ever expanding list of criteria....
I can just as easily argue that once I have summoned the lightning bolt it should have unlimited range because I have created an actual bundle of electrons...
Or a gust of wind spell should get more range because 'well the wind would blow other stuff'
Or a.....

Its a fine house rule if someone wants to go down that road...
...but RAW spells have a set range, not an effective range. And that 'effective range' bit is why they can fire beyond effective range.

[Alrik Vas]

The spell itself, sure. TW items by their stats don't always fit into this niche.

[Nightmask]

I think some people are forgetting that one of the points of techno-wizardry is that it can give extended ranges for a spell over a regular mage simply casting a spell. So a TW Annihilate-launching Mortar would provide for greater range than simply casting the spell Annihilate would. The same if you built TW Annihilate missiles, they're going to have the same range as regular missiles with simply the damage replaced by what the spell does.

In regards to another comment, the spell actually summons anti-matter from an anti-matter universe, so it's not going to somehow harmlessly go away nor would the spells containing it have any reason to safely do so since the purpose of the spell is to DESTROY, there's not going to be a component to the spell that would safely get rid of the anti-matter anymore than we have chemical weapons that can conveniently neutralize the toxic chemicals if breached improperly or for that matter at the push of a 'neutralize now' button.

[ShadowLogan]

Thing is you are thinking of it like a scroll or talisman that just cast the spell as is. TW does not have that limitation, if the spell was say built into a launched peace of tech like a mortar round or canon shell or self propelled like a missile the range goes up. If you chain it with another spell for range the range goes up. By chaining or creating a tech to give it range you over come the thrown range. So it can be set as a level 1 and put in a canon shell or missile to give it range. TW combines aspects of both tech and magic in many ways and can create results that neither tech or magic can match.

I agree it can be setup as part of a spell chain, but it if you are putting into a round/shell/missile you are essentially make a single use item. You'd have to put it into the launcher to avoid the one-use setup IMHO. The spell's range could influence when the round/shell/missile goes off though, at least that is how I see it, so even putting into the projectile itself, it is still a single use item and I see the "range" as a "timer".

I would think that in order to put it into a weapon launcher itself (like a gun, cannon, etc) you would need other spells in the chain in order to work properly, not I have a BFG so I just need Annihilate, when other examples of ranged weapons use more than one spell (IIRC) when said list is available.

Again that is a limit you applying not inherent to TW. We have TW guns that shoot spells well beyond there max range.

Here is how I see it working the round is charged and cast the spell on impact. Thus the spell travels .1 inches to the target making the spell range irrelvent.(or the spell is cast and the round holds it does not throw it until impact)

By the guide line of TW it is entirely possible to make such a device but most TW lack access tot he spell needed to create it. (TW falls under the GM approval category but technically there is nothing stopping in other than you need a mage/psi or trained gunner.)
Done right TW should rarely be using just one spell to make a device but at times the canned single use spell is helpful.

The thing is that you are essentially creating a single use item if you put it into a round/shell/missile since the item will be destroyed. That means as a single use item you are limited to a single spell, w/o anything else in the spell chain. Now you could use the multi-spell setup, but it would be much more cost effective to design/build it as a single use item (they are after all use reduced PPE and item cost).

Though at this point we are dealing with GM prerogatives here as the rules in determining performance are "soft" compared to determining how much PPE it costs to build/activate and such that have "hard" formulas. Some people are going to be more "generous" than others in this "soft" area of rules.

The TW Rules in RUE have their issues, but they are certainly better than they appeared in RMB.

[Blue_Lion]

Thing is you are thinking of it like a scroll or talisman that just cast the spell as is. TW does not have that limitation, if the spell was say built into a launched peace of tech like a mortar round or canon shell or self propelled like a missile the range goes up. If you chain it with another spell for range the range goes up. By chaining or creating a tech to give it range you over come the thrown range. So it can be set as a level 1 and put in a canon shell or missile to give it range. TW combines aspects of both tech and magic in many ways and can create results that neither tech or magic can match.

I agree it can be setup as part of a spell chain, but it if you are putting into a round/shell/missile you are essentially make a single use item. You'd have to put it into the launcher to avoid the one-use setup IMHO. The spell's range could influence when the round/shell/missile goes off though, at least that is how I see it, so even putting into the projectile itself, it is still a single use item and I see the "range" as a "timer".

I would think that in order to put it into a weapon launcher itself (like a gun, cannon, etc) you would need other spells in the chain in order to work properly, not I have a BFG so I just need Annihilate, when other examples of ranged weapons use more than one spell (IIRC) when said list is available.

Again that is a limit you applying not inherent to TW. We have TW guns that shoot spells well beyond there max range.

Here is how I see it working the round is charged and cast the spell on impact. Thus the spell travels .1 inches to the target making the spell range irrelvent.(or the spell is cast and the round holds it does not throw it until impact)

By the guide line of TW it is entirely possible to make such a device but most TW lack access tot he spell needed to create it. (TW falls under the GM approval category but technically there is nothing stopping in other than you need a mage/psi or trained gunner.)
Done right TW should rarely be using just one spell to make a device but at times the canned single use spell is helpful.

The thing is that you are essentially creating a single use item if you put it into a round/shell/missile since the item will be destroyed. That means as a single use item you are limited to a single spell, w/o anything else in the spell chain. Now you could use the multi-spell setup, but it would be much more cost effective to design/build it as a single use item (they are after all use reduced PPE and item cost).

Though at this point we are dealing with GM prerogatives here as the rules in determining performance are "soft" compared to determining how much PPE it costs to build/activate and such that have "hard" formulas. Some people are going to be more "generous" than others in this "soft" area of rules.

The TW Rules in RUE have their issues, but they are certainly better than they appeared in RMB.

First off you are making a mistake thinking them as hard rules. If you look Although there is a heading called rules there are no hard formulas in the rules section. The hard formula is under the subtitle Creation Guidelines making them soft rules to help GMs and players.
The original rifts book did not list rules for creation of devices just examples of what TW could do.

Now then look at the spell it creates a spear that is thrown X feet. So the round creates a globe but normally does not throw. It is then relapsed/thrown at point of impact so it is thrown well under the limit. (You have to look at how the tech and magic would work together with TW. Not just treat it as spell casting talisman.) Treating a single use as only casting spell x with no affect from the technology makes it worse than a scroll. A scroll can be made with little cost and PPE, while you requiring expensive gems and parts for the TW, so that should have a barring on the affect.

Just because the item is destroyed does not mean it has to be built as a single use(given the spell level if you use the guideline the mage would have to be high level). It might cost more but hey if you are building a missile or cannon round built with tech are expensive and you are making one that dwarfs the damage of pure tech. A mini missile or short range missile doing the damage for annihilate would be extremely cheep/vs damage.

[Axelmania]

The problem with this logic is that it extends to a lot of OTHER spells....and then opens up the slippery slope of continuing to extend the range of spells based on an ever expanding list of criteria....
I can just as easily argue that once I have summoned the lightning bolt it should have unlimited range because I have created an actual bundle of electrons...

The argument isn't the same for lightning, because you actually create the lightning so it would uncreate at max range. Annihilate is rare in it actually summoning a physical thing.

Knowing what happens to throwing stones after they hit or miss targets might be interesting though.

[eliakon]

The problem with this logic is that it extends to a lot of OTHER spells....and then opens up the slippery slope of continuing to extend the range of spells based on an ever expanding list of criteria....
I can just as easily argue that once I have summoned the lightning bolt it should have unlimited range because I have created an actual bundle of electrons...

The argument isn't the same for lightning, because you actually create the lightning so it would uncreate at max range. Annihilate is rare in it actually summoning a physical thing.

Knowing what happens to throwing stones after they hit or miss targets might be interesting though.

Which is still a false distinction....
First, it is defining that the lightning of a call lighting is a temporary creation, rather than an actual 'real' creation.
and
Second the Annihilate spell still magically moderates the blast, so the 'summoned' antimatter is still being magically manipulated for the entire spell. When it goes out of range the entire spell collapses and the entire anti-matter packet goes back rather than just most of the blast effects like usual.

[Nightmask]

The problem with this logic is that it extends to a lot of OTHER spells....and then opens up the slippery slope of continuing to extend the range of spells based on an ever expanding list of criteria....
I can just as easily argue that once I have summoned the lightning bolt it should have unlimited range because I have created an actual bundle of electrons...

The argument isn't the same for lightning, because you actually create the lightning so it would uncreate at max range. Annihilate is rare in it actually summoning a physical thing.

Knowing what happens to throwing stones after they hit or miss targets might be interesting though.

Which is still a false distinction....
First, it is defining that the lightning of a call lighting is a temporary creation, rather than an actual 'real' creation.
and
Second the Annihilate spell still magically moderates the blast, so the 'summoned' antimatter is still being magically manipulated for the entire spell. When it goes out of range the entire spell collapses and the entire anti-matter packet goes back rather than just most of the blast effects like usual.

Since when does the Annihilate spell moderate the blast? The spell draws an actual piece of anti-matter into the normal matter universe which does massive damage once the protective force field collapses and it can interact with normal matter. It's a seriously flaky house rule interpretation of the rules that the spell conveniently transports the anti-matter back when you hit maximum range rather than it detonating at that point, since again there's no reason at all that the spell would do something like that (and no it's a fallacy to try and argue that that's equally likely to the spell detonating at range because it isn't or that any number of unlikely scenarios have equal validity because they don't).

[Axelmania]

IMO if you knocked a mage out after they cast Annihilate but before they threw it, they'd drop it and it's explode all over the place instead of conveniently going back.

If you summoned it, being able to send it back safely without damaging anything should require casting the spell again in reverse, or some other kind of rifting spell. Maybe make a mystic portal and send it to explode inside a mountain or deep underground or in the middle of a lake, or just throw it straight up and will it to detonate there.

Which makes me wonder... can you only throw anti-matter in a straight line? I figure you can't lob it in an arc overtop a wall since anti-matter wouldn't have mass like an arrow to come down again.

[Blue_Lion]

The problem with this logic is that it extends to a lot of OTHER spells....and then opens up the slippery slope of continuing to extend the range of spells based on an ever expanding list of criteria....
I can just as easily argue that once I have summoned the lightning bolt it should have unlimited range because I have created an actual bundle of electrons...

The argument isn't the same for lightning, because you actually create the lightning so it would uncreate at max range. Annihilate is rare in it actually summoning a physical thing.

Knowing what happens to throwing stones after they hit or miss targets might be interesting though.

Which is still a false distinction....
First, it is defining that the lightning of a call lighting is a temporary creation, rather than an actual 'real' creation.
and
Second the Annihilate spell still magically moderates the blast, so the 'summoned' antimatter is still being magically manipulated for the entire spell. When it goes out of range the entire spell collapses and the entire anti-matter packet goes back rather than just most of the blast effects like usual.

Since when does the Annihilate spell moderate the blast? The spell draws an actual piece of anti-matter into the normal matter universe which does massive damage once the protective force field collapses and it can interact with normal matter. It's a seriously flaky house rule interpretation of the rules that the spell conveniently transports the anti-matter back when you hit maximum range rather than it detonating at that point, since again there's no reason at all that the spell would do something like that (and no it's a fallacy to try and argue that that's equally likely to the spell detonating at range because it isn't or that any number of unlikely scenarios have equal validity because they don't).

I find your idea is that it detonates at max range is as wrong as assuming that it does nothing at max range. The spell does not specify one way or another the spell merely temporally brings something to the caster. It is perfectly within magic to have it return where it came from when it hits a limit. With no text indicating one way or another it is up to the GM/group to decide what it does. To me an explosion at max range if it hits nothing would have been worth noting in the text, but that is just how I feel about it.

[Blue_Lion]

IMO if you knocked a mage out after they cast Annihilate but before they threw it, they'd drop it and it's explode all over the place instead of conveniently going back.

If you summoned it, being able to send it back safely without damaging anything should require casting the spell again in reverse, or some other kind of rifting spell. Maybe make a mystic portal and send it to explode inside a mountain or deep underground or in the middle of a lake, or just throw it straight up and will it to detonate there.

Which makes me wonder... can you only throw anti-matter in a straight line? I figure you can't lob it in an arc overtop a wall since anti-matter wouldn't have mass like an arrow to come down again.

Actually we have summons that once time limit is met the summon goes away without casting the spell in reverse. summing is not always permanently so it could only exist for as long as the magic force holds it on the plane. I am not aware of any summing you have to cast in reverse to return the summon thing. (some spells just summon permanently some do not)

(There is a class in FOM that summons stuff that does not stay unless they pay extra.)

[Axelmania]

If you summon a shadow beast you must intentionally return it before the time limit expires or it can stay permanently. So if someone knows you out just as you're about to will it back to the shadow dimension as the duration is about to expire, it stays.

Summoned things stay summoned unless the description says they can be returned as an aspect of the spell.

[Jerell]

I had always thought the UWW might be able to come up with some kind of experimental one shot AT-4 or Panzerfaust like weapon with Annihilate for the Warlock Marines. I have thought that would be cool in limited numbers.

Annihilate cannons on starships or rail artillery seems doable to me as well. I would allow that.

[Nightmask]

The problem with this logic is that it extends to a lot of OTHER spells....and then opens up the slippery slope of continuing to extend the range of spells based on an ever expanding list of criteria....
I can just as easily argue that once I have summoned the lightning bolt it should have unlimited range because I have created an actual bundle of electrons...

The argument isn't the same for lightning, because you actually create the lightning so it would uncreate at max range. Annihilate is rare in it actually summoning a physical thing.

Knowing what happens to throwing stones after they hit or miss targets might be interesting though.

Which is still a false distinction....
First, it is defining that the lightning of a call lighting is a temporary creation, rather than an actual 'real' creation.
and
Second the Annihilate spell still magically moderates the blast, so the 'summoned' antimatter is still being magically manipulated for the entire spell. When it goes out of range the entire spell collapses and the entire anti-matter packet goes back rather than just most of the blast effects like usual.

Since when does the Annihilate spell moderate the blast? The spell draws an actual piece of anti-matter into the normal matter universe which does massive damage once the protective force field collapses and it can interact with normal matter. It's a seriously flaky house rule interpretation of the rules that the spell conveniently transports the anti-matter back when you hit maximum range rather than it detonating at that point, since again there's no reason at all that the spell would do something like that (and no it's a fallacy to try and argue that that's equally likely to the spell detonating at range because it isn't or that any number of unlikely scenarios have equal validity because they don't).

I find your idea is that it detonates at max range is as wrong as assuming that it does nothing at max range. The spell does not specify one way or another the spell merely temporally brings something to the caster. It is perfectly within magic to have it return where it came from when it hits a limit. With no text indicating one way or another it is up to the GM/group to decide what it does. To me an explosion at max range if it hits nothing would have been worth noting in the text, but that is just how I feel about it.

Uh no, sorry, but as I already pointed out that doesn't actually make sense and is a fallacy because they aren't equally valid. It's a spell with the intention to cause a deadly explosion via the interaction of summoned anti-matter with existing positive matter, it is therefor NOT just as likely that the spell would send back what it summoned if you hit max range as it is to explode the only likely option is that if it doesn't hit something before that point then at max range the containment force field would collapse causing it to detonate because again it's a spell meant to be a deadly weapon you aren't going to be tossing that sphere of anti-matter at a target you didn't want dead and you aren't going to want it sending the anti-matter back unused when a near miss explosion can still damage or kill the target. Seriously, you're trying to kill what you're tossing it at and a near-hit has a good chance of harming or killing the target, the last thing you'd want is to have it be harmless if it missed and nothing about the spell should lead anyone to think it would be.

[Blue_Lion]

Uh no, sorry, but as I already pointed out that doesn't actually make sense and is a fallacy because they aren't equally valid. It's a spell with the intention to cause a deadly explosion via the interaction of summoned anti-matter with existing positive matter, it is therefor NOT just as likely that the spell would send back what it summoned if you hit max range as it is to explode the only likely option is that if it doesn't hit something before that point then at max range the containment force field would collapse causing it to detonate because again it's a spell meant to be a deadly weapon you aren't going to be tossing that sphere of anti-matter at a target you didn't want dead and you aren't going to want it sending the anti-matter back unused when a near miss explosion can still damage or kill the target. Seriously, you're trying to kill what you're tossing it at and a near-hit has a good chance of harming or killing the target, the last thing you'd want is to have it be harmless if it missed and nothing about the spell should lead anyone to think it would be.

No the spell intent is stated as damaging the thing struck not causing an explosion(the explosion is a secondary affect), so the fallacy lies in your logic not mine. The spell clearly says the affect is only triggered when it hits something not reaches it s range limit.(Although it could be ruled it hits the ground at its range limit do to gravity but nothing in the spell even implies that it creates mid air explosions.)

If you look at spells that summon an affect and not just creatures such as summon and control storms they affect ends at the duration. Note: annihilate is not listed as a summing spell but says it creates. So lets look at other magic affects that say they create something like this spell does and are not listed as summing. Phantom mount disappears if separated by more than 40', We also have a class called conjurer that create things that disappear at the end of the duration.

[Nightmask]

Uh no, sorry, but as I already pointed out that doesn't actually make sense and is a fallacy because they aren't equally valid. It's a spell with the intention to cause a deadly explosion via the interaction of summoned anti-matter with existing positive matter, it is therefor NOT just as likely that the spell would send back what it summoned if you hit max range as it is to explode the only likely option is that if it doesn't hit something before that point then at max range the containment force field would collapse causing it to detonate because again it's a spell meant to be a deadly weapon you aren't going to be tossing that sphere of anti-matter at a target you didn't want dead and you aren't going to want it sending the anti-matter back unused when a near miss explosion can still damage or kill the target. Seriously, you're trying to kill what you're tossing it at and a near-hit has a good chance of harming or killing the target, the last thing you'd want is to have it be harmless if it missed and nothing about the spell should lead anyone to think it would be.

No the spell intent is stated as damaging the thing struck not causing an explosion(the explosion is a secondary affect), so the fallacy lies in your logic not mine. The spell clearly says the affect is only triggered when it hits something not reaches it s range limit.(Although it could be ruled it hits the ground at its range limit do to gravity but nothing in the spell even implies that it creates mid air explosions.)

If you look at spells that summon an affect and not just creatures such as summon and control storms they affect ends at the duration. Note: annihilate is not listed as a summing spell but says it creates. So lets look at other magic affects that say they create something like this spell does and are not listed as summing. Phantom mount disappears if separated by more than 40', We also have a class called conjurer that create things that disappear at the end of the duration.

Sorry but no there's nothing fallacious in my logic, the spell is bringing anti-matter from another dimension (it's NOT creating it) which is contained within a magical force field meaning there's a material object there which the spell at no point even remotely implies it safely sends back if it reaches the effective range of the spell. Which again it's a highly destructive weapon it's not going to be made to do anything of the sort, and if the spell were as you insist going to be failing at that range given the ONLY thing of the spell active at that point is the force field that's shielding the anti-matter (which again is a physical object drawn from elsewhere) from the surrounding positive matter the only thing that can happen is the anti-matter loses its protection and explodes on contact with the surrounding positive matter.

For which you do realize that you're ridiculously twisting things when you try and treat the damage from the matter/anti-matter explosion as somehow minor or irrelevant when it's part and parcel with the event. The direct damage (i.e. matter that's annihilated by the anti-matter) is trivial in comparison to the damage from the explosion as all that matter being directly converted into energy is the actual main damaging effect. An ounce of anti-matter annihilating with an ounce of matter it's the explosive release of energy that's going to damage the surroundings the most. When that chunk of anti-matter reaches its range and the spell shielding it collapses it's going to explode and it's going to damage everything around it, it's not going to harmlessly vanish into the ether.