Forums of the Megaverse®

Just started playing a Techno-Wizard and other members of the party were interested in some TW enhancements for their armor, so I start looking at the construction rules.

RUE p. 130 says that for a single use device, it's limited to a single spell, the level of which can NOT exceed the creator's level. Does that limit apply to any other device construction, or only single-use ones? It doesn't seem to say anything about spell level vs. character level anywhere else, but it seems odd that a simpler device would be limited in a way more complex ones are not. My character is level 1, so could not make a single use Magic Shield or Armor of Ithan device until level 3? But could make a "regular" one at level 1?

that is correct, the limit only exists for single-use items.

which, quite frankly, are almost never worth the cost to make anyways. they're way too expensive for what you get out of them.

As Shark_Force said, but I will add that the Device Level of the item you can build at can not exceed your Level. So at Level 1 you can only build Device Level 1 items, you might be able to create simplified versions of higher device levels (subject to GM approval), but those won't operate with the same potency.

Shark_Force wrote:that is correct, the limit only exists for single-use items.

which, quite frankly, are almost never worth the cost to make anyways. they're way too expensive for what you get out of them.

What does a single-use device do? I had read it as "single function," only one spell in it, compared with the many TW devices that have more than one spell and more than one function (a lightning rod having an attack and protecting you from lightning). But your comment makes me think it could also be "single use, then it's used up," like a grenade or potion.

Single use more like a canned spell, or TW scroll once it is used it is gone. I play TWs allot but dislike what I perceive as some of the munchkin clauses. The TW rules are a general guide to help not meant to limit creativity. Personally I feel single use TW items should be treated more like scrolls, low cost of material to make require large PPE investment and good 1 time (I require the use of a spell like create scroll to give it the single use charge affect.) Really who wants to pay thousands of credits for a magic grenade that does 5d6 MDC.

I use the fallowing formula for single use devices, minimal physical cost intended spell affects level or total level of spell change times 2d6 cr, PPE cost intended spell affect or total of spell linked in the chain times 5 plus the PPE cost of create scroll. That is using the create scroll to make a non standard scroll such as a grenade or emergency button effect. Note I do not require the spell read, but do require that the user be a mage or psi to have the skill to will the effect to activate.

Shark_Force wrote:quite frankly, are almost never worth the cost to make anyways. they're way too expensive for what you get out of them.

Pretty much agree, Annihilate suicide bomber packs excepted.

Wheeljack wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:that is correct, the limit only exists for single-use items.

which, quite frankly, are almost never worth the cost to make anyways. they're way too expensive for what you get out of them.

What does a single-use device do? I had read it as "single function," only one spell in it, compared with the many TW devices that have more than one spell and more than one function (a lightning rod having an attack and protecting you from lightning). But your comment makes me think it could also be "single use, then it's used up," like a grenade or potion.

single use devices are "single use, then it's used up".

so yeah, like i said, not generally worth it (and that annihilate suicide bomb could be done better as an annihilate cannon with a teleport escape option; you still might suicide because teleport has a chance to just kill you, but it's much better than your chance of surviving ground zero of an annihilate for most people ).

Cannons would presumably take up more space and be harder to sneak in past defenses to get to a target.

Wheeljack wrote:Just started playing a Techno-Wizard and other members of the party were interested in some TW enhancements for their armor, so I start looking at the construction rules.

RUE p. 130 says that for a single use device, it's limited to a single spell, the level of which can NOT exceed the creator's level. Does that limit apply to any other device construction, or only single-use ones? It doesn't seem to say anything about spell level vs. character level anywhere else, but it seems odd that a simpler device would be limited in a way more complex ones are not. My character is level 1, so could not make a single use Magic Shield or Armor of Ithan device until level 3? But could make a "regular" one at level 1?

Page 132, under Techno-Wizard Device Level, states that the TW can not make a device that's higher than his own level. This is for both single-use (like a grenade) or multi-use items.

So a level 1 character can only make level 1 devices. A level 5 character can make levels 1-5 devices.

As for spell selection, yes, a level 1 character can make an Armor of Ithan device (a 3rd level invocation) but it's effectiveness would be restricted to device level 1 (10 MDC).

matter of perspective i guess. with a suicide bomber, you need to sneak an entire person next to the target. with a cannon, you need to sneak a large gun to within a few hundred feet of the target.

@ mack: that's the device level, which has already been mentioned. not the level of the spell you're putting into the device, which is what he was asking about.

Shark_Force wrote:matter of perspective i guess. with a suicide bomber, you need to sneak an entire person next to the target. with a cannon, you need to sneak a large gun to within a few hundred feet of the target.

@ mack: that's the device level, which has already been mentioned. not the level of the spell you're putting into the device, which is what he was asking about.

If I was going to use suicide bombers in rifts with magic, I would use a different approach, combine a preserve spell with TW cyber zombie implants NG plastic explosives in the chest. Zombie goes in blows up reforms rinse and repeat.

How much plastic explosive would you need to match the annihilate spell though? Would like to compare the weight needed to a TW device.

Tor wrote:How much plastic explosive would you need to match the annihilate spell though? Would like to compare the weight needed to a TW device.

3 pounds of NG 6 MD plastique explosives. Note for some reason they do not give the blast radius for the explosives.

That is because a suicide bomber is the epicenter of the blast taking the 2d4X100 while every thing in 10 feet takes 4d6X10. (I know you where probably thinking that what is next to or around the bomber takes the main hit of 2d4X100 however to be the source of the explosion that is not the case. Annihilate is better suited to cannon rounds and missals than suicide bombers.

The implication here is that the weapon's primary blast will hit the target. Suicide only meaning that it has a range of touch.

Tor wrote:The implication here is that the weapon's primary blast will hit the target. Suicide only meaning that it has a range of touch.

A suicide bomber, indicates the bomber blows themselves up to take out a target making the bomber ground zero. That is the implication of calling it a suicide bomber, what you are stating is something different.

Suicide bombers goal is to inflict both physical and moral damage on the target group, not taking out 1 single high value target. The more targets hurt or killed by a suicide bomber so the annilalte spell is a poor choice.

If I was to make a 1 shot annilalte it would be a missile or cannon round with a minimal range of about 1 mile up to long range missile range include improve invis for a stealth hit to take out 1 high value target from a safe range.

Annihilate is one of those spells that ripe for abuse if you use the RUE TW creations rules. It can be cast at level one effectiveness without losing any damage.

Here's a single use Annihilate device (would work like a grenade or a timed bomb).

Per the spell, inflicts 2D4x100 MD, and 4D6x10 MD to a 10 foot radius. Device is destroyed in the process.
Range: Thrown or set like a bomb
Device Level 1
Construction: 60 PPE & 3 hours
Gems carats - 1 of Lapis Lazuli
Build Cost: 2,800 credits

And here's a TW gun version:

Per the spell, inflicts 2D4x100 MD, and 4D6x10 MD to a 10 foot radius.
Range: 600 feet
Device Level 1
Activation: 30 PPE per shot
No PPE storage, the user must donate the PPE for each shot.
Construction: 600 PPE & 60 hours
Gems carats: 10 of Lapis Lazuli
Build Cost: 56,000 credits

(Note - those are Build Costs, not the Sales Price.)

Thanks for the calcs Mack, I'm still trying to get my head around those new rules TBH.

Blue_Lion wrote:A suicide bomber, indicates the bomber blows themselves up to take out a target making the bomber ground zero.

I don't agree, I see it broader as simply being a bomber willing to take damage from their own bomb and probably die in the process. Nothing about suicide means that your death is the primary target of the violence.

Blue_Lion wrote:That is the implication of calling it a suicide bomber, what you are stating is something different.

An implication you've gotten from the media and not the actual words that make up the term.

Blue_Lion wrote:Suicide bombers goal is to inflict both physical and moral damage on the target group, not taking out 1 single high value target.

Your definition is unnecessarily narrow, rejected.

Blue_Lion wrote:The more targets hurt or killed by a suicide bomber so the annilalte spell is a poor choice.

That depends on the desires of the bomber.

Blue_Lion wrote:If I was to make a 1 shot annilalte it would be a missile or cannon round with a minimal range of about 1 mile up to long range missile range include improve invis for a stealth hit to take out 1 high value target from a safe range.

That would be great for a lot of situations, but not so good for targets behind walls you can't get a bead on.

Tor wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:If I was to make a 1 shot annilalte it would be a missile or cannon round with a minimal range of about 1 mile up to long range missile range include improve invis for a stealth hit to take out 1 high value target from a safe range.

That would be great for a lot of situations, but not so good for targets behind walls you can't get a bead on.

that's why you should make an annihilate cannon instead. first shot gets rid of that silly wall, second shot is on the target you wanted in the first place

Shark_Force wrote:

Tor wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:If I was to make a 1 shot annilalte it would be a missile or cannon round with a minimal range of about 1 mile up to long range missile range include improve invis for a stealth hit to take out 1 high value target from a safe range.

That would be great for a lot of situations, but not so good for targets behind walls you can't get a bead on.

that's why you should make an annihilate cannon instead. first shot gets rid of that silly wall, second shot is on the target you wanted in the first place

That is allot of PPE you are using.

Tor wrote:Thanks for the calcs Mack, I'm still trying to get my head around those new rules TBH.

Blue_Lion wrote:A suicide bomber, indicates the bomber blows themselves up to take out a target making the bomber ground zero.

I don't agree, I see it broader as simply being a bomber willing to take damage from their own bomb and probably die in the process. Nothing about suicide means that your death is the primary target of the violence.

Blue_Lion wrote:That is the implication of calling it a suicide bomber, what you are stating is something different.

An implication you've gotten from the media and not the actual words that make up the term.

Blue_Lion wrote:Suicide bombers goal is to inflict both physical and moral damage on the target group, not taking out 1 single high value target.

Your definition is unnecessarily narrow, rejected.

Blue_Lion wrote:The more targets hurt or killed by a suicide bomber so the annilalte spell is a poor choice.

That depends on the desires of the bomber.

Blue_Lion wrote:If I was to make a 1 shot annilalte it would be a missile or cannon round with a minimal range of about 1 mile up to long range missile range include improve invis for a stealth hit to take out 1 high value target from a safe range.

That would be great for a lot of situations, but not so good for targets behind walls you can't get a bead on.

Lets check some online dictionaries and see.
The most creditable source on a quick search-
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... e%20bomber
"Noun •S: (n) suicide bomber (a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people) "

So you are rejecting Princeton's definition of suicide bomber because it is to narrow for your intent? You are using warped logic to change the meaning of what you said to make it more creditable but is out line with creditable definitions of the term.

There are lots of ways to strike targets down that you can not draw a bead on that do not use suicide bombers. Smart munitions that can deliver the package, planning a bomb, and getting to safe distance, drone delivery system, teleportation. Suicide bombers work best in public places any one can go without being checked. So I say going off the psychology involved a annihilate spell is a poor choice for a suicide bomber.

Shark_Force wrote:that's why you should make an annihilate cannon instead. first shot gets rid of that silly wall, second shot is on the target you wanted in the first place

Sometimes with bigger fortresses (like the ones people who need annihilates to kill tend to live in) there are multiple walls in the way, or you don't know exactly who they are, or even if you could get through, it gives them time to port away, or sometimes there's an impenetrable wall of force.

Blue_Lion wrote:Lets check some online dictionaries and see. The most creditable source on a quick search- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... e%20bomber "Noun •S: (n) suicide bomber (a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people) " So you are rejecting Princeton's definition of suicide bomber

How am I rejecting it? "Other people" would still include a single individual, although bombs are more commonly used for multiple targets in proximity.

"Blows himself up" doesn't mean he's making himself the bomb's primary target. You can be a suicide bomber by strapping a bomb to your chest, yes, but you can also be one by hiding it in the front of a bus and detonating it from the back.

Blue_Lion wrote:because it is to narrow for your intent? You are using warped logic to change the meaning of what you said to make it more creditable but is out line with creditable definitions of the term.

Your definition's too narrow, Princeton's is broader than you think.

Blue_Lion wrote:There are lots of ways to strike targets down that you can not draw a bead on that do not use suicide bombers.

Of course there are, I never said otherwise. But it can still be used for that purpose, even if it's not the primary use for it.

Kind of like you can throw swords at people. A guy's still a swordmaster if he's an awesome sword-thrower even if swordmaster generally makes us think of hand to hand guys.

Blue_Lion wrote:Suicide bombers work best in public places any one can go without being checked. So I say going off the psychology involved a annihilate spell is a poor choice for a suicide bomber.

What spell is preferable for an S-bomber?

Tor wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:that's why you should make an annihilate cannon instead. first shot gets rid of that silly wall, second shot is on the target you wanted in the first place

Sometimes with bigger fortresses (like the ones people who need annihilates to kill tend to live in) there are multiple walls in the way, or you don't know exactly who they are, or even if you could get through, it gives them time to port away, or sometimes there's an impenetrable wall of force.

Blue_Lion wrote:Lets check some online dictionaries and see. The most creditable source on a quick search- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... e%20bomber "Noun •S: (n) suicide bomber (a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people) " So you are rejecting Princeton's definition of suicide bomber

How am I rejecting it? "Other people" would still include a single individual, although bombs are more commonly used for multiple targets in proximity.

"Blows himself up" doesn't mean he's making himself the bomb's primary target. You can be a suicide bomber by strapping a bomb to your chest, yes, but you can also be one by hiding it in the front of a bus and detonating it from the back.

Blue_Lion wrote:because it is to narrow for your intent? You are using warped logic to change the meaning of what you said to make it more creditable but is out line with creditable definitions of the term.

Your definition's too narrow, Princeton's is broader than you think.

Blue_Lion wrote:There are lots of ways to strike targets down that you can not draw a bead on that do not use suicide bombers.

Of course there are, I never said otherwise. But it can still be used for that purpose, even if it's not the primary use for it.

Kind of like you can throw swords at people. A guy's still a swordmaster if he's an awesome sword-thrower even if swordmaster generally makes us think of hand to hand guys.

Blue_Lion wrote:Suicide bombers work best in public places any one can go without being checked. So I say going off the psychology involved a annihilate spell is a poor choice for a suicide bomber.

What spell is preferable for an S-bomber?

How are you rejecting it.
A terrorist that blows himself up (primary target) to kill or harm others (area of affect.)
It clearly says he is blowing himself up making him ground zero. (personally I hope GM slap down any attempted to create such obvious immoral actions by applying the worse conditions to the finished project.)

For the record bombers are only called suicide bombers when they make themselves ground zero, ones caught in there own blast are not but not at the source generally are not classified as such.

I find suicide bombers to be a poor choice for anything other than terrorist. For most military operations there is a way to achieve greater success against even hard targets that does not involve 100% loss of assigned people. Any group of players with access to this spell can come up with lots of better ways to strike the target. It is used in terrorism as the ultimate statement and method of intent and for the level of fear it brings. To increase the level of terror increase the body count. The spell meteor would be a better choice do to its larger AOE and ability to destroy most light mdc structures. 1d6X10 +2 per level to a 40' radius. However I do not feel the use of Suicide bombers should be used in games.

I'm disagreeing that a suicide bomber's primary target is himself. Suicide bombing doesn't necessarily mean a bomb is strapped to you, just that you are willing to be caught in the radius of the blast. If you're shoe-bombing a plane, you don't have to put the shoe back on, you could throw it at the pilot's compartment, you'd still be suicide-bombing. It's broader than 'hot dogs on my chest' stereotypes.

I hope GM slap down any attempted to create such obvious immoral actions by applying the worse conditions to the finished project.

That would not be neutral GMing. TW construction rules should not change based on morality of intended usage.

For the record bombers are only called suicide bombers when they make themselves ground zero, ones caught in there own blast are not but not at the source generally are not classified as such.

I have never heard of such a silly restriction. Looking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack they use the broad "attack upon a target in which an attacker intends to kill others and/or cause great damage, knowing that he or she will either certainly or most likely die in the process." definition.

Things like vest bombs don't define suicide bombing, they're just a common form of concealment. If I were to walk into a bathroom and Hitler was sitting on the toilet in 1 stall and I sat down in the next stall and tossed an MD plasma grenade over the top (or rolled it underneath) into his stall, he would be the primary target of the blast radius, but it would still be a suicide attack because the MD plasma would still rip through the SDC wall dividing our toilets and likely kill me.

For most military operations there is a way to achieve greater success against even hard targets that does not involve 100% loss of assigned people.

Suicide attacks do not require 100% guarantee of operative fatality, just an overwhelming likelihood due to the high risk. It's basically a slang term, thus the 'Suicide Squad' of DC Comics.

For examples, you can see in Firetown page 19 the initial mission of Ragnarok Squad being a 'suicidal battle'. Or back in Sot1p131 it says it 'may be a suicide mission' for those who help the Key. Suicide attack/battle/mission does not mean you are the primary target or that killing yourself is even a requirement, just that the risks required create an overwhelming likelihood of death due to the risks.

You could even call something like a simultaneous attack a 'suicide' attack, if you stand a decent chance of dying by opting not to defend against something. You don't have to go as far as Yoshimitsu opts to for it to qualify.

I don't think that a discussion on the proper mentality and tactics of Suicide bombers is relevant to the topic at hand. As some people might find the topic offensive....why not put it in its own topic so that people who want to actually talk about TW can do so?

What it's called is kind of irrelevant I guess, point being, you can make a 1-shot annihilate device to target someone other than yourself with.

Mack wrote:Annihilate is one of those spells that ripe for abuse if you use the RUE TW creations rules.

That is why its pretty clear that all TW Devices need to be cleared with your G.M.

Also, Annihilate is a pretty high level spell, not likely youre going to encounter it or find someone willing to teach it to you without some pretty flash heroics or role-playing. Ultimately, its acquisition is also left in the hands of the Game Master.

P.S.: Am I the only one who has a pet peeve with the way so many people "churn out" TW items without using the rules for drawing up schematics and designs and thinking it through? TW is one of my least favorite things because people seem to abuse it so much and undermine its "cool" concept and principle -- limiting it to making weapons of mass-destruction and such. I prefer TW stuff like we see in the Black Vault with some actual FLARE to it and not just "its a gun that shoots a spell".

Akashic Soldier wrote:Am I the only one who has a pet peeve with the way so many people "churn out" TW items without using the rules for drawing up schematics and designs and thinking it through?

Sometimes, but I'd hate most canon TW stuff if I let it overwhelm me.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Mack wrote:Annihilate is one of those spells that ripe for abuse if you use the RUE TW creations rules.

That is why its pretty clear that all TW Devices need to be cleared with your G.M.

Also, Annihilate is a pretty high level spell, not likely youre going to encounter it or find someone willing to teach it to you without some pretty flash heroics or role-playing.

Sufficient amounts of cash and the will to search out a teacher will eventually give you access to any non-legendary spell (unless the GM has decided that it's simply not going to happen...in which case, he should just tell you so that you don't waste everyone's time).

Alternatively, making a deal with a Temporal Wizard who is about to level up will yield similar results.

Every time I've ever played a Temporal Wizard, I get a list of the spells that that GM doesn't want to deal with before I make my spell selections. Annihilate has never been on anyone's list, but, admittedly, that was before RUE came out with its easily abusable TW rules.

--flatline

GMs shouldn't tell players that, it's not a waste of time to search for a spell just because you don't end up finding it, still a great roleplaying opportunity.

Besides... if you can't pay a teacher to teach you a spell, you could pay a psychic to brainwash the teacher into wanting to do it for free

Akashic Soldier wrote:
P.S.: Am I the only one who has a pet peeve with the way so many people "churn out" TW items without using the rules for drawing up schematics and designs and thinking it through? TW is one of my least favorite things because people seem to abuse it so much and undermine its "cool" concept and principle -- limiting it to making weapons of mass-destruction and such. I prefer TW stuff like we see in the Black Vault with some actual FLARE to it and not just "its a gun that shoots a spell".

I've always felt this annoyance too. I've always preferred to make "utility" TW items rather than strictly offensive items (not that there weren't a few of those too, lol). My favorite item is an auto rift closer designed with the Geofront mission in mind. Sadly there's not much room for the time needed for that kind of style of items so the TW always seems to show up as an NPC/Merchant.

Everyone is always so worried about Annihilate cannons, etc. Yet less than 8 lbs of explosives do the same direct hit damage. Which by the way fit on a missile just fine. Or in an artillery shell. I do agree with the assertion that people ignore the TW rules on schematics and prototypes. If a GM enforces those rules a PC Techno-Wizard will have great difficulty creating new devices.

not really difficulty. it may take longer, but it's not really particularly harder than building something that there is already a commonly available design for.

Tor wrote:I'm disagreeing that a suicide bomber's primary target is himself. Suicide bombing doesn't necessarily mean a bomb is strapped to you, just that you are willing to be caught in the radius of the blast. If you're shoe-bombing a plane, you don't have to put the shoe back on, you could throw it at the pilot's compartment, you'd still be suicide-bombing. It's broader than 'hot dogs on my chest' stereotypes.

I hope GM slap down any attempted to create such obvious immoral actions by applying the worse conditions to the finished project.

That would not be neutral GMing. TW construction rules should not change based on morality of intended usage.

For the record bombers are only called suicide bombers when they make themselves ground zero, ones caught in there own blast are not but not at the source generally are not classified as such.

I have never heard of such a silly restriction. Looking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack they use the broad "attack upon a target in which an attacker intends to kill others and/or cause great damage, knowing that he or she will either certainly or most likely die in the process." definition.

Things like vest bombs don't define suicide bombing, they're just a common form of concealment. If I were to walk into a bathroom and Hitler was sitting on the toilet in 1 stall and I sat down in the next stall and tossed an MD plasma grenade over the top (or rolled it underneath) into his stall, he would be the primary target of the blast radius, but it would still be a suicide attack because the MD plasma would still rip through the SDC wall dividing our toilets and likely kill me.

For most military operations there is a way to achieve greater success against even hard targets that does not involve 100% loss of assigned people.

Suicide attacks do not require 100% guarantee of operative fatality, just an overwhelming likelihood due to the high risk. It's basically a slang term, thus the 'Suicide Squad' of DC Comics.

For examples, you can see in Firetown page 19 the initial mission of Ragnarok Squad being a 'suicidal battle'. Or back in Sot1p131 it says it 'may be a suicide mission' for those who help the Key. Suicide attack/battle/mission does not mean you are the primary target or that killing yourself is even a requirement, just that the risks required create an overwhelming likelihood of death due to the risks.

You could even call something like a simultaneous attack a 'suicide' attack, if you stand a decent chance of dying by opting not to defend against something. You don't have to go as far as Yoshimitsu opts to for it to qualify.

Lets compare sources.
I used a academic dictionary from a credible source for mine. You used Wikipedia witch is not classified as creditable in of itself.

So I rule your source is irrelevant to the topic.

Military only classifies bombers who are the center of the bomb as suicide bombers those caught in the blast but not the center of the blast do not get the same classification. If the bomber is not the center of the attack his intent might not have been to die, he could have made mistake misjudge the blast so they are not the same category.

Although it may be possible to do an attack that is considered suicidal and live that is not what we are discussing. Suicide bombers always have 100% loss as the mission has no chance to survive. So your twisted logic is irrelevant to the term.

But we drifted off the main point.
The point was some one said that single use items are not worth making.
You said things like suicide bombers with the annihilate spell are worth making.
I said better to make the annihilate spell as single use long range munitions.

So let me ask this did you ever consider if the life you are throwing away has value?
Using the method that cost your side the least in lives and credits is what is worth doing.

The loss of lives that did not need to be lost to win means that it is not worth using a suicide tatic.

Dr Megaverse wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:
P.S.: Am I the only one who has a pet peeve with the way so many people "churn out" TW items without using the rules for drawing up schematics and designs and thinking it through? TW is one of my least favorite things because people seem to abuse it so much and undermine its "cool" concept and principle -- limiting it to making weapons of mass-destruction and such. I prefer TW stuff like we see in the Black Vault with some actual FLARE to it and not just "its a gun that shoots a spell".

I've always felt this annoyance too. I've always preferred to make "utility" TW items rather than strictly offensive items (not that there weren't a few of those too, lol). My favorite item is an auto rift closer designed with the Geofront mission in mind. Sadly there's not much room for the time needed for that kind of style of items so the TW always seems to show up as an NPC/Merchant.

I would have to agree TW should be about flavor not just another way to do damage.

Blue_Lion wrote:I used a academic dictionary from a credible source for mine.

Psh, you posted:

The most creditable source on a quick search- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... e%20bomber
"Noun •S: (n) suicide bomber (a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people) "
So you are rejecting Princeton's definition of suicide bomber because it is to narrow for your intent?

Using a little search engine that happens to be hosted by Princeton isn't the same as consulting an actual Princeton language professor.

Blue_Lion wrote:You used Wikipedia witch is not classified as creditable in of itself. So I rule your source is irrelevant to the topic.

Mentioning Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm citing it as some kind of official reference. Neither thing we pointed out is any kind of authority.

If we're pulling out names: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... ide-bomber
"a person who has a bomb hidden on their body and who kills themselves in the attempt to kill others"

I reject that as overly narrow too. Sometimes you need to look past the arbitrary phrasing used by people trying to convey a basic stereotype to commoners, and look at the word's construction. A bomb need not be "on" the body for example. It could be IN the body, it could be adjacent to it, it could be under it, etc.

Even with the thing you got from the Princeton site though: it supports my usage. "In order to kill or injure other people" is the stated purpose. That would make them the primary targets. "Blows themselves up" is the means, not the aim, and a side effect.

Blue_Lion wrote:Military only classifies bombers who are the center of the bomb as suicide bombers those caught in the blast but not the center of the blast do not get the same classification.

Source? What's the alternate classification?

Blue_Lion wrote:If the bomber is not the center of the attack his intent might not have been to die, he could have made mistake misjudge the blast so they are not the same category.

Undetermined status doesn't disqualify someone as a suicide bomber, it just means they haven't made up their minds. An actual suicide bomber could be misjudged as being an accident (like say, if they were a demolitions disposal guy and people thought something went off) and a non-bomber could be misjudged as being a bomber if blamed for an accidental explosion.

Blue_Lion wrote:Although it may be possible to do an attack that is considered suicidal and live that is not what we are discussing. Suicide bombers always have 100% loss as the mission has no chance to survive. So your twisted logic is irrelevant to the term.

Suicide bombing is defined by the intent, not the result. If a Latent Nightbane detonated a vest and underwent a Becoming that allowed them to survive it, their not having died as a result does not mean they weren't suicide bombing.

Blue_Lion wrote:You said things like suicide bombers with the annihilate spell are worth making. I said better to make the annihilate spell as single use long range munitions.

They both have their own valid tactical uses.

Blue_Lion wrote:So let me ask this did you ever consider if the life you are throwing away has value?

That's a demeaning question. Please cease talking down to me.

Blue_Lion wrote:Using the method that cost your side the least in lives and credits is what is worth doing.

If a long-range annihilate spell fails to hit the evil Geomancer who is summoning the 4 horsemen because you lobbed it into indestructible wall of his fortress rather than sneaking in a smaller 1-use item, then in sparing the life of the suicide bomber you doom the lives of millions.

Blue_Lion wrote:The loss of lives that did not need to be lost to win means that it is not worth using a suicide tatic.

If it creates a better chance of success, then it could be, if that success prevents additional deaths. That's a choice for the bomber to make.

Long-range bombing simply doesn't work. Perhaps you can visualize this better with weapons instead of spells. Sure, you can throw javelins at a fortress, but it can be tactically unsound if someone has fortifications. Using espionage though, simply sneaking in a guy with a dagger could accomplish the aim better, even if it means the dagger-user dies in the attempt, it can be more efficient than 100 javelin-throwers getting shot down by arrows as they push against a wall.

K, we're doing that now. Sufficed to say, I think that a 1-shot annihilate would be good for taking out Dunscon, and since you'd only need 1 to do it, it doesn't make sense to waste expense and materials and time to make a big bulky refuellable canon instead of a tiny bomb you can sneak into the City of Brass to get him with.

Dude he said drop it in the forums.

Not dance around the issue.

I'm simply saying that sometimes it is worth the cost to make them. But I can agree with 'almost never'.

and then you realize that it's not that much harder to make a second TW device that can help you escape after using it once, and that you could (for example) use the TW annihilation cannon dozens of times before you even consider going to kill dunscon. and that it's probably much easier to get within a few hundred feet of dunscon than it is to personally meet with him in the first place.

the situations where it's a sound idea are pretty limited.

Shark_Force wrote:and then you realize that it's not that much harder to make a second TW device that can help you escape after using it once, and that you could (for example) use the TW annihilation cannon dozens of times before you even consider going to kill dunscon. and that it's probably much easier to get within a few hundred feet of dunscon than it is to personally meet with him in the first place.

the situations where it's a sound idea are pretty limited.

We were asked to drop it by admin so do not feed it any more.

Dr Megaverse wrote:I've always felt this annoyance too. I've always preferred to make "utility" TW items rather than strictly offensive items (not that there weren't a few of those too, lol). My favorite item is an auto rift closer designed with the Geofront mission in mind. Sadly there's not much room for the time needed for that kind of style of items so the TW always seems to show up as an NPC/Merchant.

Blue_Lion wrote:I would have to agree TW should be about flavor not just another way to do damage.

Right on!

Shark_Force wrote:and then you realize that it's not that much harder to make a second TW device that can help you escape after using it once

The issue here isn't how hard it is to make things, but rather, how much space they take up, and how that could interfere with concealment. Say if you were dressed scantily like the Succubi that Dunscon has hanging around. There may not be many places to hide devices, and the less you bring, the easier it would be to conceal.

Shark_Force wrote:you could (for example) use the TW annihilation cannon dozens of times before you even consider going to kill dunscon.

True, and annihilation cannons are a great asset in battle, not denying that, but kinda bulky to bring into his bedroom.

Shark_Force wrote:it's probably much easier to get within a few hundred feet of dunscon than it is to personally meet with him in the first place.

True, but it's unlikely you'd get a clear shot within those hundred feet, even if there weren't walls/minions in the way, the farther you had to throw it, the more obvious your motion would be, and the harder it would be to get a sneak attack.

Shark_Force wrote:the situations where it's a sound idea are pretty limited.

It's called 'infiltrating the City of Brass'. Trying to do that with a cannon is limited.

if you're wearing next to nothing, where exactly are you going to hide an annihilation bomb?

Shark_Force wrote:if you're wearing next to nothing, where exactly are you going to hide an annihilation bomb?

Inside you.

In a delicious cake.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Dr Megaverse wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:
P.S.: Am I the only one who has a pet peeve with the way so many people "churn out" TW items without using the rules for drawing up schematics and designs and thinking it through? TW is one of my least favorite things because people seem to abuse it so much and undermine its "cool" concept and principle -- limiting it to making weapons of mass-destruction and such. I prefer TW stuff like we see in the Black Vault with some actual FLARE to it and not just "its a gun that shoots a spell".

I've always felt this annoyance too. I've always preferred to make "utility" TW items rather than strictly offensive items (not that there weren't a few of those too, lol). My favorite item is an auto rift closer designed with the Geofront mission in mind. Sadly there's not much room for the time needed for that kind of style of items so the TW always seems to show up as an NPC/Merchant.

I would have to agree TW should be about flavor not just another way to do damage.

When we're talking about "churning out", do you mean that you're actually making the players draw out schematics IRL for these devices...realizing that a) high-tech gadgets that are commonplace in Rifts are decades away from real-world development, if ever (can't think of a single portable particle beam rifle I've actually seen in real life that truly fires a particle beam capable of shooting through an M1 Abrams tank, but maybe I've somehow missed that story on CNN...), and b) you would be drawing up schematics involving a pseudo-science (technowizardry) that most definitely does not exist IRL? Because that's kind of ridiculous; it'd be like requiring a player to pass through advanced training on how to pilot an M1 tank before they can play a character who happens to drive one in the campaign.

Or do you mean that your players are trying to bring in "fully-formed" TW devices into the game without having to spend the in-campaign time to develop the plans, roll for possible failure, & then go through the prototyping? If that's the case...then the GM is apparently not doing their job very well, because he should be a) insisting that they actually spend the time in-campaign doing so ("Your device is going to take 80 hours to prototype? Ok, you have the choice of taking a week off from the campaign, or you can spend the next few months every night working on it after the day-to-day adventuring...assuming you have the time & energy afterwards), or b) insisting that the character is unavailable for adventuring until the schematics & prototypes are done in-game...which means he won't be around to help his buddies (or get a share of any loot) while they're out storming the Coalition arcology.

As for flair vs. strictly inflicting damage, or "utility items" vs. "weapons"....we already have a number of examples of utility or non-weapon items (mostly anti-vampire items, like the TW Globe of Daylight flares, or the crosses that glow when vampires come near, but there are other devices as well like the "tree trimmers"). But just because the "typical" TW uspposedly goes around wearing WW2-style leather bomber jackets & WW1-era flying caps-and-goggles doesn't mean they're all kooks. They're wizards who have an affinity for mixing magic & technology together. They don't object to technology per se....they just think it would "work better" if it was powered by P.P.E. instead of a rechargeable battery/E-clip. And while you can quickly run out of P.P.E. recharging a TW ion rifle during combat, it's a lot quicker to pump P.P.E. into it (takes what, 1 melee action?) versus swapping out a regular E-clip (IIRC, that's somewhere between 2 melee actions & half your melee actions).

Not to mention the whole pride thing. Any wizard or psychic can go buy a TW item from the Black Market (or, if they have the access, maybe even a "traditional" magic item/weapon). But Techno-Wizards are much more likely to carry around their own creations. "Yeah, this is my favorite: pulled this C-12 rifle from a Coalition sergeant that was trying to kill my partner. I converted the power source, added a custom trigger, 'enhanced' scope feature, has a blinking light whenever vampires get within 300ft...I call her 'Vera'..." He might, in a pinch, deign to pick up an item from the Black Market...but usually a) because he doesn't (yet) know the spell that it runs off of, b) he's in a time crunch & doesn't have the weeks he'd need to build his own device, or c) he doesn't have access to his usual stash & needs a quick replacement.

And besides, there's always "weapons" like Kralizec's TW Wind Bazooka (http://www.temporalnexus.net/multiverse/hosted_sites/rifts-rpg/magic/twweapons/windbazooka.html. Granted, it's a combo of the old-style RMB rules plus his own house rules, but the idea is nice & illustrates how a Techno-Wizard could work with an Air Warlock to create a unique item. Or for something really different, his TW Entity Launcher (http://www.temporalnexus.net/multiverse/hosted_sites/rifts-rpg/magic/twweapons/entitylauncher.html): no damage, it just "fires" an entity at the target -- Poltergeist, Syphon, Tectonic, Astral, Ghosts or (worst of all) Possessing. That's got so much "flair", Ric "The Nature Boy" is thinking of suing it for copyright infringement (j/k).