Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2013 6:29 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Alrik Vas wrote:As I understand it, a nuclear weapon requires an explosion to be set off anyway. It's like using a blasting cap.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. precicly calibrating and timing the explosion so it actually works instead of just scattering the material is the hardest part. it's basically impossible to do by accident.

Incorrect. An explosion is the only known way you can set off a hydrogen bomb, but fission weapons can be detonated with a rail gun. Using a gun-type trigger, you can do a lot of stuff pretty easily*.

Gun-type triggers are astonishingly easy to make and do not require the precision necessary for a hydrogen bomb. Hell, Louis Slotin did criticality experiments without even a gun-type trigger, and accidentally took something critical without protection (and dying in the process...the fool).

/Sub

*When I was in junior high, I got in trouble because I made the blueprints for such a bomb for a science project. I don't think they'd have been so mad, but I showed how to get fissile material to do it (no, I'm not going to tell you what to do - lots of the stuff isn't available anymore, and it's REALLY dangerous). I got the idea from my English book; there was a story where a guy did the same thing. It didn't say how to do it, but it did list all the books the guy used when he did it (idiots - like I'm NOT going to go find them?!). I thought it was cool so I went to the library and got the same books. I didn't test it, but according to the books it would've worked. The next year I was only allowed to make an incubator. They pissed me off, so I made a med-fly incubator. Those in or from Southern California will know why that made them even angrier. :demon:

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2013 6:41 pm**

I was also in a game one time where a psychic character used Telemechanic Possession to take over a suit of power armor, which my character had filled with mini-missile warheads that were all rigged to detonate.
The detonation command was wired into the suit, so the psychic could trigger it himself.
Then he charged into the mechanoid stronghold, killed as many as he could, then blew up the armor.

Posted: **Sat May 25, 2013 9:14 pm**

Alrik Vas wrote:As I understand it, a nuclear weapon requires an explosion to be set off anyway. It's like using a blasting cap.

no it is much more complicated than that. A nucler bomb is such that the detenating force has to be just right so the only thing that causes it to go nuckler is its own internal firing mechnisim. A outside explositon whould not cause the force to hit just right as the delay from it hitting the difrent firing points whould cause it to fail to go nucler.

Posted: **Sat May 25, 2013 9:18 pm**

Subjugator wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Alrik Vas wrote:As I understand it, a nuclear weapon requires an explosion to be set off anyway. It's like using a blasting cap.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. precicly calibrating and timing the explosion so it actually works instead of just scattering the material is the hardest part. it's basically impossible to do by accident.

Incorrect. An explosion is the only known way you can set off a hydrogen bomb, but fission weapons can be detonated with a rail gun. Using a gun-type trigger, you can do a lot of stuff pretty easily*.

Gun-type triggers are astonishingly easy to make and do not require the precision necessary for a hydrogen bomb. Hell, Louis Slotin did criticality experiments without even a gun-type trigger, and accidentally took something critical without protection (and dying in the process...the fool).

/Sub

*When I was in junior high, I got in trouble because I made the blueprints for such a bomb for a science project. I don't think they'd have been so mad, but I showed how to get fissile material to do it (no, I'm not going to tell you what to do - lots of the stuff isn't available anymore, and it's REALLY dangerous). I got the idea from my English book; there was a story where a guy did the same thing. It didn't say how to do it, but it did list all the books the guy used when he did it (idiots - like I'm NOT going to go find them?!). I thought it was cool so I went to the library and got the same books. I didn't test it, but according to the books it would've worked. The next year I was only allowed to make an incubator. They pissed me off, so I made a med-fly incubator. Those in or from Southern California will know why that made them even angrier.

I think what you had was a thoeritical desine that was untested and may not acctualy work. If it was easy to desine nukes that work counties whould not need programs to get started. What you had was the ground work to start a progam and a thortical desine. But as what you had was in public access abilty then conties working to desine nukes whould not take several tries for scintest to do so.

By the way I think there was a movie in the late 80s or some time in the 90s on the book. I rember a movie where a high school student made a nucler bomb.

Posted: **Sat May 25, 2013 9:43 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:I think what you had was a thoeritical desine that was untested and may not acctualy work. If it was easy to desine nukes that work counties whould not need programs to get started.

They need programs to get them started because hydrogen bombs are a PAIN to make. Did you even bother to look at what I linked?

*sigh*

FROM MY LINK - AND THIS IS ALSO LINKED TO THE SAME PAGE wrote:With regard to the risk of proliferation and use by terrorists, the relatively simple design is a concern, as it does not require as much fine engineering or manufacturing as other methods. With enough highly-enriched uranium (not itself an easy thing to acquire), nations or groups with relatively low levels of technological sophistication could create an inefficient—though still quite powerful—gun-type nuclear weapon.

FAS.ORG wrote:In the gun device, two pieces of fissionable material, each less than a critical mass, are brought together very rapidly to forma single supercritical one. This gun-type assembly may be achieved in a tubular device in which a high explosive is used to blow one subcritical piece of fissionable material from one end of the tube into another subcritical piece held at the opposite end of the tube.

Manhattan Project scientists were so confident in the performance of the "Little Boy" uranium bomb that the device was not even tested before it was used.

HowStuffWorks.com wrote:The simplest way to bring the subcritical masses together is to make a gun that fires one mass into the other. A sphere of U-235 is made around the neutron generator and a small bullet of U-235 is removed. The bullet is placed at the one end of a long tube with explosives behind it, while the sphere is placed at the other end. A barometric-pressure sensor determines the appropriate altitude for detonation and triggers the following sequence of events:
The explosives fire and propel the bullet down the barrel.
The bullet strikes the sphere and generator, initiating the fission reaction.
The fission reaction begins.
The bomb explodes.

CUNY.EDU wrote:The simplest method of assembling a critical mass is to begin with two hemispheres, each containing half of a critical mass, and drive them together rapidly. This is called a "gun-type" device. Chemical explosions at two ends of the bomb drive the two hemispheres together. When the critical mass (the full sphere) is formed, and a small influx of neutrons is introduced at the right time, a fission explosion occurs. This method was used in the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima at the close of World War II.

CTBTO.org wrote:The gun-type weapon is produced through a rather simple process in which one mass of U-235 is ‘shot’ into another by conventional explosives, creating a critical mass. The impact generates more neutrons, ensuring a fission chain reaction.The gun-type nuclear explosion is the most inefficient in terms of burning up the fissile material; only about 1.4 percent of the HEU in the Hiroshima bomb actually fissioned.

Do you even bother to find out what you're talking about before you say someone is wrong?! For God's sake, try finding out what you're talking about before you open your mouth! The reason they get into weapons programs is because fissile material is scarce and expensive, and fusion weapons deliver a LOT more explosive power with the same amount of fissile material.

What you had was the ground work to start a progam and a thortical desine.

You don't know **** all about what I had other than the words I've posted here, and yet you feel fit to comment on it?

But as what you had was in public access abilty then conties working to desine nukes whould not take several tries for scintest to do so.

They use scientists to build BIG nuclear weapons. They don't use scientists to build TINY ones. The one I detailed is REALLY easy to make and is an explicit concern when they think terrorists have fissile material, because it can be EASILY used with MINIMAL technology to make a nuclear bomb. What it will NOT do is make a 10MT bomb.

By the way I think there was a movie in the late 80s or some time in the 90s on the book. I rember a movie where a high school student made a nucler bomb.

There was a kid who made a breeder reactor in his backyard. That's the only one I know of.

/Sub

EDIT: Fixed quote

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2013 2:25 am**

Subjugator wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:I think what you had was a thoeritical desine that was untested and may not acctualy work. If it was easy to desine nukes that work counties whould not need programs to get started.

They need programs to get them started because hydrogen bombs are a PAIN to make. Did you even bother to look at what I linked?

*sigh*

FROM MY LINK (AND THIS IS ALSO LINKED TO THE SAME PAGE)"
With regard to the risk of proliferation and use by terrorists, the relatively simple design is a concern, as it does not require as much fine engineering or manufacturing as other methods. With enough highly-enriched uranium (not itself an easy thing to acquire), nations or groups with relatively low levels of technological sophistication could create an inefficient—though still quite powerful—gun-type nuclear weapon.[/quote]

[quote="FAS.ORG wrote:In the gun device, two pieces of fissionable material, each less than a critical mass, are brought together very rapidly to forma single supercritical one. This gun-type assembly may be achieved in a tubular device in which a high explosive is used to blow one subcritical piece of fissionable material from one end of the tube into another subcritical piece held at the opposite end of the tube.

Manhattan Project scientists were so confident in the performance of the "Little Boy" uranium bomb that the device was not even tested before it was used.

HowStuffWorks.com wrote:The simplest way to bring the subcritical masses together is to make a gun that fires one mass into the other. A sphere of U-235 is made around the neutron generator and a small bullet of U-235 is removed. The bullet is placed at the one end of a long tube with explosives behind it, while the sphere is placed at the other end. A barometric-pressure sensor determines the appropriate altitude for detonation and triggers the following sequence of events:
The explosives fire and propel the bullet down the barrel.
The bullet strikes the sphere and generator, initiating the fission reaction.
The fission reaction begins.
The bomb explodes.

CUNY.EDU wrote:The simplest method of assembling a critical mass is to begin with two hemispheres, each containing half of a critical mass, and drive them together rapidly. This is called a "gun-type" device. Chemical explosions at two ends of the bomb drive the two hemispheres together. When the critical mass (the full sphere) is formed, and a small influx of neutrons is introduced at the right time, a fission explosion occurs. This method was used in the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima at the close of World War II.

CTBTO.org wrote:The gun-type weapon is produced through a rather simple process in which one mass of U-235 is ‘shot’ into another by conventional explosives, creating a critical mass. The impact generates more neutrons, ensuring a fission chain reaction.The gun-type nuclear explosion is the most inefficient in terms of burning up the fissile material; only about 1.4 percent of the HEU in the Hiroshima bomb actually fissioned.

Do you even bother to find out what you're talking about before you say someone is wrong?! For God's sake, try finding out what you're talking about before you open your mouth! The reason they get into weapons programs is because fissile material is scarce and expensive, and fusion weapons deliver a LOT more explosive power with the same amount of fissile material.

What you had was the ground work to start a progam and a thortical desine.

You don't know **** all about what I had other than the words I've posted here, and yet you feel fit to comment on it?

But as what you had was in public access abilty then conties working to desine nukes whould not take several tries for scintest to do so.

They use scientists to build BIG nuclear weapons. They don't use scientists to build TINY ones. The one I detailed is REALLY easy to make and is an explicit concern when they think terrorists have fissile material, because it can be EASILY used with MINIMAL technology to make a nuclear bomb. What it will NOT do is make a 10MT bomb.

By the way I think there was a movie in the late 80s or some time in the 90s on the book. I rember a movie where a high school student made a nucler bomb.

There was a kid who made a breeder reactor in his backyard. That's the only one I know of.

/Sub[/quote]
Did you set it off to test it? If not it is a theortical desine that by what you know whould work, but untell you test it you do not know.

Untell you have a successfull test any information you have is the ground work for a progem and a theortical desine.

The movie I am thinking of he made a small nucler bomb that fit in a tool box.

And as I stated it was what I think, meaning it was what I think not the absulte fact.
You do not need to get so hot under the collor about it.
I have seen lots of people think they have something that should work easy and it does not work. Some of them even experts in the field.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2013 2:37 am**

Blue_Lion wrote:Did you set it off to test it? If not it is a theortical desine that by what you know whould work, but untell you test it you do not know.

Untell you have a successfull test any information you have is the ground work for a progem and a theortical desine.

The design was made and *used* by someone else. You may have heard of the event. It was dropped on Hiroshima.

The movie I am thinking of he made a small nucler bomb that fit in a tool box.

Unrelated to me.

And as I stated it was what I think, meaning it was what I think not the absulte fact.
You do not need to get so hot under the collor about it.
I have seen lots of people think they have something that should work easy and it does not work. Some of them even experts in the field.

My blood sugar was low and I was already nutso irate about Nightmask, et al. I also detest it when people tell me I'm wrong without bothering to find out first. I just had a big argument with my teacher because he asked me to source something that I didn't need to source. The discussion went a bit like this.

Teacher: You need to source that information.
Me: *sigh* No, I don't. I am the source.
Teacher: You're not a valid source for that information. <- He's an idiot right here. He should have asked if I am one, not told me that I'm not.
Me: Yes...yes I am.
Teacher: No you aren't. <- He's a *double* idiot right here. Once I've said I am, ask for my credentials.
Me: That is basic knowledge within the insurance industry, and I am a legally recognized expert on the subject of property and casualty insurance. I am licensed in 46 states and can testify in court as an expert witness. I am a valid source for this information. Would you like me to establish my credentials further? I've restrained myself from correcting you in this class more than once, but it's been difficult. I am reconsidering my decision not to do so.
Teacher: You're a valid source for this information?
Me: For the third time, yes. I am a legally recognized expert on the subject.
Teacher: *silence*
Me: Do we need anything else?
Teacher: *silence* No, I think we're OK. Good night.

I thought I was going to have to go do the dean of students to verbally smack the **** out of a teacher AGAIN.

/Sub

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2013 4:38 am**

Subjugator wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:Did you set it off to test it? If not it is a theortical desine that by what you know whould work, but untell you test it you do not know.

Untell you have a successfull test any information you have is the ground work for a progem and a theortical desine.

The design was made and *used* by someone else. You may have heard of the event. It was dropped on Hiroshima.

The movie I am thinking of he made a small nucler bomb that fit in a tool box.

Unrelated to me.

And as I stated it was what I think, meaning it was what I think not the absulte fact.
You do not need to get so hot under the collor about it.
I have seen lots of people think they have something that should work easy and it does not work. Some of them even experts in the field.

My blood sugar was low and I was already nutso irate about Nightmask, et al. I also detest it when people tell me I'm wrong without bothering to find out first. I just had a big argument with my teacher because he asked me to source something that I didn't need to source. The discussion went a bit like this.

Teacher: You need to source that information.
Me: *sigh* No, I don't. I am the source.
Teacher: You're not a valid source for that information. <- He's an idiot right here. He should have asked if I am one, not told me that I'm not.
Me: Yes...yes I am.
Teacher: No you aren't. <- He's a *double* idiot right here. Once I've said I am, ask for my credentials.
Me: That is basic knowledge within the insurance industry, and I am a legally recognized expert on the subject of property and casualty insurance. I am licensed in 46 states and can testify in court as an expert witness. I am a valid source for this information. Would you like me to establish my credentials further? I've restrained myself from correcting you in this class more than once, but it's been difficult. I am reconsidering my decision not to do so.
Teacher: You're a valid source for this information?
Me: For the third time, yes. I am a legally recognized expert on the subject.
Teacher: *silence*
Me: Do we need anything else?
Teacher: *silence* No, I think we're OK. Good night.

I thought I was going to have to go do the dean of students to verbally smack the **** out of a teacher AGAIN.

/Sub

Athou you are a legally reconized expert on the subject, it is gneraly required that as a student you get a outside source. So athou you where the expert to him you are a student a beginer. I have to wonder why you taking a class that pertains to a subject that you are a expet on.
Instead of calling him a idiot you have to look at his side of it, many students claim to be experts when they are not. As you are in a student roll there is no reason for him to even consider you a expert on the subject. He was not unreasable in assuming you where not. To me it looks like he was fallowing the same percider as he whould on any student.

I rember one time during a combatives class I was AI for one of the students tried to make a corectionon our stance.
He clained he was a subject mater expert a he taght hand to hand for 6 years as a drill sgt at ft benning and that we should stand sideways to our foe to present a smaller target.
I asked him where the plates where on his vest.
He said the front.
I asked him whould he not rather get shot or hit in the plate than the side.
He stoped stood there for a moment then said it does not mater how we train to fight is to make a smaller target.
I told him that was out dated MACP teaches to put your plates to the foe.
He said that he has been succesfully training people to fight that way for years.
I told him the army tested and found the outdated line training hand to hand he used did was not effective in combat. The army had a spent time and money reserching what it took to have a succusful hand to hand program and that is what MACP is. That is why the Rangers develeped it.

(MACP = Modern army Combative program it is based of Brazilan Jujitsu with some boxing, kick boxing and stick fighting at higher levels)

Now how many times do you think your teacher had a simular debate with a student that was not the expert that he claimed to be.

On the desine you may have coppied there desine but that does not mean that all the right information was in the books. So one or two key factors could be slightly off. But that is me beeing picky. I learned not to trust devices that have not been tested. In the end it is kinda mute, point. Becuse what you did is what you did, what you know is what you know and it does not mater whether or not any one else belives you about it.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2013 9:36 am**

Blue_Lion wrote:Athou you are a legally reconized expert on the subject, it is gneraly required that as a student you get a outside source. So athou you where the expert to him you are a student a beginer. I have to wonder why you taking a class that pertains to a subject that you are a expet on.
Instead of calling him a idiot you have to look at his side of it, many students claim to be experts when they are not. As you are in a student roll there is no reason for him to even consider you a expert on the subject. He was not unreasable in assuming you where not. To me it looks like he was fallowing the same percider as he whould on any student.

I'm taking the class because it's a degree requirement. I call him an idiot not because he didn't believe me, but because he didn't ask. He assumed.

I rember one time during a combatives class I was AI for one of the students tried to make a corectionon our stance.
He clained he was a subject mater expert a he taght hand to hand for 6 years as a drill sgt at ft benning and that we should stand sideways to our foe to present a smaller target.
I asked him where the plates where on his vest.
He said the front.
I asked him whould he not rather get shot or hit in the plate than the side.
He stoped stood there for a moment then said it does not mater how we train to fight is to make a smaller target.
I told him that was out dated MACP teaches to put your plates to the foe.
He said that he has been succesfully training people to fight that way for years.
I told him the army tested and found the outdated line training hand to hand he used did was not effective in combat. The army had a spent time and money reserching what it took to have a succusful hand to hand program and that is what MACP is. That is why the Rangers develeped it.

(MACP = Modern army Combative program it is based of Brazilan Jujitsu with some boxing, kick boxing and stick fighting at higher levels)

Now how many times do you think your teacher had a simular debate with a student that was not the expert that he claimed to be.

A professional that's active and maintaining continuing education units in the industry is an active expert. This guy was an expert but was wrong. Experts can be wrong. If I were he, I'd have checked what you were talking about at my earliest opportunity and if confirmed, would've thanked you. The difference is that an expert doesn't have to provide another expert as their source of basic information.

On the desine you may have coppied there desine but that does not mean that all the right information was in the books. So one or two key factors could be slightly off. But that is me beeing picky. I learned not to trust devices that have not been tested. In the end it is kinda mute, point. Becuse what you did is what you did, what you know is what you know and it does not mater whether or not any one else belives you about it.

If you read up on it, you'd see it's ridiculously easy. The only things you have to avoid are having insufficient fissile material, insufficient explosive force for the trigger, and a poor barrel for the delivery. Seriously - they're PATHETICALLY easy to make. Read about them! I'd have a harder time making some of the synthetic explosives than I would the mechanical portion of one of those bad boys. They're just GROSSLY inefficient and wasteful.

/Sub

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2013 2:00 pm**

Do they not have the option to clep the class? I know lots of schools allow military members to take tests for classes that they already know.

I do not feel that assuming anything makes him a idiot. There was no reason for him to suspect a subject mater expert was in his class.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2013 7:45 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:Do they not have the option to clep the class? I know lots of schools allow military members to take tests for classes that they already know.

I do not feel that assuming anything makes him a idiot. There was no reason for him to suspect a subject mater expert was in his class.

My calling him an idiot was in his reference to his failure to ask why before dismissing me.

/Sub

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:58 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:I was also in a game one time where a psychic character used Telemechanic Possession to take over a suit of power armor, which my character had filled with mini-missile warheads that were all rigged to detonate.
The detonation command was wired into the suit, so the psychic could trigger it himself.
Then he charged into the mechanoid stronghold, killed as many as he could, then blew up the armor.

This is something I did at a POH game ran by Gleba. I got a pregen pcc and used my Telemechanic Possession to grapple a mechanoid, run it away from the party and detonate the reactor. Thankfully the other PC's dragged my body into the escape pod. Good times haha.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:14 pm**

Telemechanics+speed reading+total recall

telemechanics gets you the full schematic of any tech you can read, speed reading and total recall allows you to go over it whenever.

My lv3 TW just started with all of these abilities

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:03 am**

Telemechanic Paralysis can drop a high-tech opponent quickly. I do not believe this is a canon power in Rifts, but I once talked a GM into letting me have the psionic version of Teleport Object, which is quite useful with fusion blocks.

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:44 am**

I used TK force field and super TK to make an MD blender using (what were basically) MD chainsaws. have a gm designed psionic teleport power. grap the bad guy, teleport them into the MD blender. bgrrrrrawaa!!!!!!. and repeat.

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:28 am**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Alrik Vas wrote:Just TK and fire? No one's done anything insane with bio-manipulation or the like?

What's insane left to do? spam bio-manipulate pralasis until they fail the save. fight over.

Hehe pretty much this. For as much other fun stuff Psionics can do really when it comes down to it its really hard to beat just using bio manipulation every attack until the target fails their save then move on to the next victim. While its fun throwing people around like rag dolls or setting flaming swords on incinerate simply paralyzing your opponent is almost always the most effective thing you can do with your ISP and it leaves a lot more intact loot that does not require drastic amounts of soap and water to clean after the fight.

Posted: **Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:27 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:By the way I think there was a movie in the late 80s or some time in the 90s on the book. I rember a movie where a high school student made a nucler bomb.

That was an episode of Macguyver.

Posted: **Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:38 pm**

The Beast wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:By the way I think there was a movie in the late 80s or some time in the 90s on the book. I rember a movie where a high school student made a nucler bomb.

That was an episode of Macguyver.

No it was a movie, kid stole enriched Plutonium from a processing center near his town and built a nuclear device as a science fair project and demonstrated such astounding levels of stupidity when the FBI caught up with him he actually told them 'sure you can have it, right after I win the Science Fair', worse he didn't seem to suffer any consequences for it. Well one can hope he died of acute radiation poisoning considering he was shown processing the stuff without ANY safeguards and actually inserting the apple-sized sphere of pure plutonium into the bomb with his bare hands. Artistic License-Physics one would think, since that sphere should have been hotter than Chernobyl.

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:10 pm**

I think most of this thread is a devastating use of of Psionics.

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:15 pm**

Nightmask wrote:
The Beast wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:By the way I think there was a movie in the late 80s or some time in the 90s on the book. I rember a movie where a high school student made a nucler bomb.

That was an episode of Macguyver.

No it was a movie, kid stole enriched Plutonium from a processing center near his town and built a nuclear device as a science fair project and demonstrated such astounding levels of stupidity when the FBI caught up with him he actually told them 'sure you can have it, right after I win the Science Fair', worse he didn't seem to suffer any consequences for it. Well one can hope he died of acute radiation poisoning considering he was shown processing the stuff without ANY safeguards and actually inserting the apple-sized sphere of pure plutonium into the bomb with his bare hands. Artistic License-Physics one would think, since that sphere should have been hotter than Chernobyl.

The Manhattan Project (1986)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/

Posted: **Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:55 pm**

Johnnycat93 wrote:Burster Super Fuel Flame on a flaming sword. You end up with something like 80d6 damage per strike and a blade that is like 60 ft long.

Which flaming sword, the TW one that does 4d6? SFF can only 10x so that'd be 4d6x10.

Johnnycat93 wrote:You use the power on thee sword, which is fire, and all if it's factors are increased by 10 fold (or 20 us you are from psyscape and choose to double super fuel flame).

Psyscape only allows you to double a super psionic power. The Burster's special RCC psionic powers (even "super" fuel flame) are not "super psionic" powers. A Burster could only double their power to Radiate Horror Factor. The only clear way to get a double-Burster is with Gene-Splicers or their Three Galaxies Gene-Tech ripoffs.

Johnnycat93 wrote:It requires no concentration to maintain and only costs a few ISP.

On the contrary, seeing as how the power doesn't have a listed duration, it could be interpreted as an 'instant' power, which would require you to expend the ISP for every single melee attack you swung the sword with the increased damage.

Johnnycat93 wrote:Alternatively, you could super-fuel your flaming aura and get around 600 MDC

Only the damage is stated to (possibly, with GM approval) increase with the flames, not any MDC protection.

Subjugator wrote:hypnotic suggestion is powerful as hell, but I'd not considered this aspect of it. Why in the hell is Psi-Sword limited to third level and higher, but this freakishly unfair power not?

Probably something to do with the short range and requirement of verbal cues and eye contact, and getting a savings throw.

If you're this upset, I'd hate to see you in a game of Nightbane when you realize that it's just a sensitive power and not even super psionics there.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Even one mind melter can wreak incredible damage when used smartly.

I'd like to see them match the MD-dealing capabilities of any mage out there with the level 2 spell of Throwing Stones.

People wonder why the CS is concerned about those time bombs. At least a lot of supernatural invaders are limited to melee range in their threats.

DhAkael wrote:a pile of grenades beside it + telekinesis

I'm not sure if it's been clarified in the books whether or not TK can be used to pull pins. The pin may be treated as part of the grenade and only moveable as a single unit rather than 2 discrete ones.

filo_clarke wrote:Group Mind Block has no save. It can be erected without the people within its area knowing that they are being "Mind Block-ed", and because it functions like the lesser power of the same name, it prevents even the most powerful entities from using any of their psionic abilities while the filed is in place. At best, someone from outside the Mind Block area could use Detect Psionics and realize what was going on, but otherwise everyone within is clueless.

Presumably a Psi-Nullifier could automatically negate it, though. Which would negate it for the whole group. I'm sure Psi-Battalion uses such a strategy.

Subjugator wrote:My calling him an idiot was in his reference to his failure to ask why before dismissing me.

Dismissing someone without asking their reasons could be called rashness more accurately than idiocy.

aegis wrote:my neo-human sea inquisitor bonded with the psymbiote, both were able to open their minds eye

Which doesn't protect you from getting mind-controlled by the psymbiote, enjoy your slavery.

aegis wrote:2 psi swords doing just normally double damage, then on supernatural evil it would double once more..

Unfortunately this would take a melee prep, so people might simply flee until duration expires and pound on your for a 1/4 minute in between, all the while depleting your ISP in guerrilla warfare. You would have difficulty with flying or ranged enemies since you can't throw the swords. Perhaps you might use your super TK to bring opponents in range? Psi-Nullifiers or Mind Bleeders would cause you and your master a lot of problems.

aegis wrote:they would see a sudden MDC being who was wielding 2 psi-swords and well, I had a few quick fights.

I assume you made the swords while they were sauntering up to you? Were you a faster runner? What prevented them from fleeing from the swords?

Forums of the Megaverse®

Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics

Re: Most Devasting use of Psionics