From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 5:12 PM 
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #206 
 
 
champ-l-digest        Monday, February 15 1999        Volume 01 : Number 206 
 
 
 
In this issue: 
 
    RE: Paying END sporadically 
    Re: Damage Shield question (& answer) 
    RE: Paying END sporadically 
    Re: Character: Sam Gamgee 
    RE: Paying END sporadically 
    RE: Paying END sporadically 
    RE: Paying END sporadically 
    Duplication/Multiform question - Reply 
    Re: Paying END sporadically 
    Re: Paying END sporadically 
    Re: Paying END sporadically 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 14:37:47  
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> 
Subject: RE: Paying END sporadically 
 
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 01:06:54 -0800, Filksinger wrote: 
 
>Several people have made the suggestion that this should be reflected 
>as a Limitation on the Advantage "0 END". 
> 
>I have considered this, but it doesn't work quite right. For most 
>uses, yes, that would be best, but what if I want a power that costs 
>full END plus extra when an attack occurs? 
 
How about Side Effects? 
qts 
 
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:28:02 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Damage Shield question (& answer) 
 
>one wil tel you not to hit the guy, the other you need somebody else to hit 
>them to know that. 
>That's a substantial difference. 
 
Yes, but what's the difference between it and normal IPE on a Damage Shield? 
In the latter case, you're still most likely going to be able to tell when 
someone hit the target that the hitter took damage, even if there's no 
visual flash or the like, because the attacker will flinch, recoil or 
whatever.  And you'll certainly be able to tell when you're the hitter.  I'm 
just not sure there's any practical difference. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 14:36:47  
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> 
Subject: RE: Paying END sporadically 
 
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 01:06:52 -0800, Filksinger wrote: 
 
>From: qts [mailto:qts@nildram.co.uk] 
> 
><snip> 
>> Surely this is simply a variation on Ablative? The 'get 
>> more energy' is 
>> simply recasting the effect. 
> 
>Not exactly. I have a Force Field. So long as nothing is directed 
>against it, it is effortless to maintain. If something _is_ directed 
>against it, it stops it, but I get tired faster. 
> 
>I did just think of an SFX for it: A reactive field. In other words, 
>if intense energy is directed against it, it draws more energy from 
>its user to deflect it, instantly. 
 
Ah, that's a bit clearer. Just apply the Advantage 0 END, Partially 
Limited 'Not when hit' and I'd give it -1/2. 
qts 
 
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:45:29 GMT 
From: samael@clark.net (Acid Rainbow) 
Subject: Re: Character: Sam Gamgee 
 
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:39:25 -0500, Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> sent 
these symbols into the net: 
 
>3	Animal Handler 11-	 
>1	Stealth 8-	 
   I'd be tempted to give Sam the stealth skill in full, and not just a 
familiarity. There are several instances in both the Hobbit and Lord of the 
Rings that mention that Hobbits are good at stealth, and hiding. 
********************************************************************** 
*Lissajous patterns and windmills and don't ask about the connection.* 
*       Acid Rainbow: Semi-professional windmill-tilter.             * 
********************************************************************** 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:03:50 -0800 
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> 
Subject: RE: Paying END sporadically 
 
From: qts [mailto:qts@nildram.co.uk] 
 
> For most 
> >uses, yes, that would be best, but what if I want a power 
> that costs 
> >full END plus extra when an attack occurs? 
> 
> How about Side Effects? 
 
I thought about that. It is another good example, save that it still 
doesn't cover the most extreme example. What about a Force Field that 
costs full END, and then costs 1 END/BODY done to it in addition to 
the initial END cost? It cannot be properly done with Side Effects or 
Limited Advantages. Only a new Limited Power Limitation or Limitations 
on Limitations can do this effect, I suspect. 
 
Filksinger 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:03:44 -0800 
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> 
Subject: RE: Paying END sporadically 
 
From: Stainless Steel Rat 
> 
> "F" == Filksinger  <filkhero@usa.net> writes: 
> 
> F> Which is irrelevant to what he said or your response. He 
> said it ran 
> F> "automatically", 
> 
> *sigh* 
> 
> That cannot happen unless you use a stupid mail program 
> that does that 
> (like Outlook). 
 
1) Are you unable to grasp the concept that he did _not_ mean that it 
ran to install itself on the machine automatically, but only added 
itself to emails automatically _after it was run_? 
 
2) Outlook does not do this. I know of no email program that does. I 
doubt you could find one. 
 
>Fortunately, most such programs can disable this 
> 'feature', even Outlook; unfortunately, it is frequently on 
> by default. 
 
No executable I have ever downloaded in Outlook, Outlook Express, 
Pegasus Mail, Eudora Lite, or Eudora has _ever_ automatically executed 
on my machine. Furthermore, I cannot find in either Outlook or Outlook 
Express any way to make the program _ever_ automatically run any 
executable; nor do I know of any remotely credible source who claims 
that this or any other .exe file ever has. 
 
I doubt you can actually show me a program that does so. 
 
> Regardless, were I using such a program, disabling the automatic run 
> 'feature' would be the first thing I did.  *NOBODY* runs 
> programs on my 
> machine without my explicit invocation.  It is a good 
> policy to have. 
 
You really don't get this at all, do you? 
 
First, no one _ever_ said the happy99.exe ran on your computer without 
human intervention. I know of no email program that will do this, and 
doubt you can show me one. 
 
The original poster of the "it runs automatically" comment meant that 
it sent itself out automatically _one the machine was infected_. Thus, 
your repeated comment about how _your_ machine would not run it 
automatically to begin with are irrelevant. Nobody's machine would run 
it automatically to begin with; only infected machines do. 
 
Secondly, your repeated statements that "*NOBODY* runs programs on my 
machine without my explicit invocation" makes no sense, since there 
exists nobody in this discussion who had this happen to them. I 
certainly don't allow programs to run on my machine without my 
intervention. 
In fact, I can find no way to arrange for it to do so, short of 
writing a program to do it for me. 
 
I _did_ run the bloody thing. I was told to expect something to be 
sent to me. The person who said this then accidentally sent me the 
happy99.exe file, along with a header indicating it was the file he 
was sending to me. Furthermore, for no reason I have been able to 
determine, the email containing the worm arrived on my machine one 
day, but the email he sent didn't arrive until the next morning, after 
I had run it, rebooted at one point, and sent off emails to people 
with the bloody worm. Thus, I had no warning in the form of a 
duplicate subject header. 
 
No one has suggested that this program runs without human 
intervention. No one has had it run on their machine without human 
intervention. Every case we have discussed where it ran on a machine 
it was initially invoked by a human being. Repeatedly saying, "It 
wouldn't run on my machine without my intevention" is pointless; it 
wouldn't run on _any_ machine without the user's intervention. 
 
Filksinger 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 99 10:43:46  
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> 
Subject: RE: Paying END sporadically 
 
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:03:50 -0800, Filksinger wrote: 
 
>From: qts [mailto:qts@nildram.co.uk] 
> 
>> For most 
>> >uses, yes, that would be best, but what if I want a power 
>> that costs 
>> >full END plus extra when an attack occurs? 
>> 
>> How about Side Effects? 
> 
>I thought about that. It is another good example, save that it still 
>doesn't cover the most extreme example. What about a Force Field that 
>costs full END, and then costs 1 END/BODY done to it in addition to 
>the initial END cost? It cannot be properly done with Side Effects or 
>Limited Advantages. Only a new Limited Power Limitation or Limitations 
>on Limitations can do this effect, I suspect. 
 
There's a feedback Advantage for Entangle - how about reversing it, 
thus turning it into a Limitation? 
qts 
 
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:38:37 +0000 
From: Stephen McGinness <MCGINNESSS@parliament.uk> 
Subject: Duplication/Multiform question - Reply 
 
I would be inclined to do this by having the powers for the combined monster 
bought as not when duplicated. This is the way that I would go about it instead of 
trying to combine the multiform and duplication stuff. 
 
eg: you could buy +20STR, not when duplicated, to represent the extra oomph 
you get, multiple limbs, not when duplicated. 
 
The possibilities are endless. The question is how much of a limitation it is. I 
personally would go for +1/2. After all you lose a lot of utility when you duplicate.  
 
If you wanted to buy unusual looks as a disad, then this too would have to take 
the +1/2 limitation as you could lose it by duplicating.... 
 
 
Stephen 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 15 Feb 1999 14:26:13 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
* "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:03:50 -0800 
| I thought about that. It is another good example, save that it still 
| doesn't cover the most extreme example. 
 
Yeah, my first thought was to use Side Effects, but it did not take me long  
to realise that it does not work the way desired. 
 
Like I said, there is no clean way to do it based on the extant rules. 
You're going to have to wing it somehow. 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux) 
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org 
 
iD8DBQE2yHTVgl+vIlSVSNkRAuAUAJ9RwmMORiN77aAjEp9zffJ7w0QoMwCbBvDh 
u/O+49YCa70JrMfpdKn+eGU= 
=6QT4 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types 
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \  
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 15 Feb 1999 14:37:06 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
* "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:03:44 -0800 
| 1) Are you unable to grasp the concept that he did _not_ mean that it 
| ran to install itself on the machine automatically, but only added 
| itself to emails automatically _after it was run_? 
 
That is the nature of viruses.  In fact, that is what distinguishes a virus 
from a Trojan horse: viruses automatically propogate themselves; Trojan 
Horses require human intervention.  happy99.exe seems to be a hybrid. 
 
| 2) Outlook does not do this. I know of no email program that does. I 
| doubt you could find one. 
 
Early versions of Outlook Express do indeed default to automatically 
extracting and executing program attachments.  I expect that Microsoft has 
changed that in more recent versions of Outlook Express due to significant 
flamage. 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux) 
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org 
 
iD8DBQE2yHdigl+vIlSVSNkRArzAAJ0d31TtvHqD4DdDEbfOUvgO0aufTQCfUBrz 
M5V6FPxuAMCQnLeBe82c/yM= 
=MSn5 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly 
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \  
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:51:24 -0600 (Central Standard Time) 
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu> 
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically 
 
> > My God Filksinger, I HOPE to hell this was a joke and you didnt just 
> > distribute this virus to the entire list!!! 
>  
> Happy99.exe does this on it's own. 
 
	Hmmmm. Unexpected bonus of PC-Pine.  I got this as a bunch of 
encoded text in an email file.  Kinda funny.  Though I don't feel too good 
after reading it... 
 
 
					-Tim Gilberg 
			-"English Majors of the World!  Untie!" 
 
------------------------------ 
 
End of champ-l-digest V1 #206 
*****************************