Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 81
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:30 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #81
champ-l-digest Tuesday, December 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 081
In this issue:
Re: Character Comparisons
Re: combat drones
The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
Off Topic but tangential
Re: How do you define 'mutant'
Re: Take a look at these power concepts.
Re: Magic Lock
Re: Durability of Various Things
Re: Off Topic but tangential
Re: Off Topic but tangential
Re: The Mountie
Re: Take a look at these power concepts.
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Re: Off Topic but tangential
Re: Jay Ward movies
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
RE: [Fuzion] Off Topic but tangential
Re: How do you define 'mutant'
Re: AP/Penetrating question
Re: Take a look at these power concepts.
On-line comic
Re: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Re: How do you define 'mutant'
Re: How do you define 'mutant'
Re: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
Re: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:31:02 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Character Comparisons
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
>
>WS> I'll agree you can't get perfection, but you can get a lot closer than
>WS> that without being cumbersome.
>
>I obviously disagree. There is too much possibility in Hero for a simple
>formula to accurately approxmate all characters' combat potential. There
>are simply too many 'breaking pitches'.
I feel otherwise because I've been using a version of the Rule of X formula
for several months, and while I've had to patch it a couple times, it's
worked admirably, even though the group includes a couple of marginal power
gamers. Feel free to critique it when I post.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:21:21 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: combat drones
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com> writes:
>
>AJ> It's not obvious that followers can't be automatons (in which case they
>AJ> really don't have minds of their own).
>
>Champions Deluxe, page 48:
>
> Followers should normally be written up by the GM, just like
> DNPCs. They are loyal to the character, although the GM should
> determine whether the Follower will perform suicidal tasks.
Fine, Rat. Now, if you don't buy Automatons through the Follower rules, how
_do_ you buy them and Computers? It's pretty silly to use the 1/5 rule for
Vehicles, Bases and Followers, and suddenly pay full price for Automatons
and Computers.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 22:14:42 -0700
From: Curtis A Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
Subject: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
Everyone listen up,
This here is some information I've uncovered, and I want to spread it
quickly before _they_ catch up with me.
You ever wonder why normal rational people go nuts for beanie
babies...it's a plot. A Dr Destroyer plot. You see, he took the
technology from his hypno satalite and minturized it. He has planted
these in the beanie babies, disguised as some of the 'beans'. Right now
all these insidous mind control devices are broadcasting are "Buy Beanie
Babie, Buy lots of them, love them, no matter what the cost".
The thing is these little computers have all sorts of other programming.
Destroyer is gathering information about all of us this way, and
isolating those that have minds and wills that he can manipulate.
Soon, very soon, the electronics in these little things will be
broadcasting a new message, a message of servitude to the will of Doctor
Destroyer. And how can the SuperHeroes save us then, they can't go
around slaughtering normals under Destroyers control (Well except for
Harbinger).
Save yourselves. Get rid of the insidous things at once.
- --
What is called glory, I think, is mostly the relief you feel after
you've fought and lived through battle without getting maimed.
- -Harry Turtledove Krispos Rising
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:01:14 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Off Topic but tangential
I have a multi-part question relating to the real world, physics, and sci fi.
1) My brother says he saw something on TV about a recent Space Shuttle
mission with an interesting experiment aboard. If anybody can confirm
this, please do. And cite sources, because I'd rather say "it was in
Popular Science" or "it was on the Discovery Channel" than "My brother says
he saw it on TV." It was like this:
If you move a copper wire through a magnetic field, it makes electricity.
The earth has a magnetic field. A satelite or space station could,
therefore, generate some electricity by using a long copper wire. The
experiment, says my brother, had a copper wire strung out from the shuttle
with a buoy-thing on the end to see how much current it would produce. It
produced much more current that they thought possable; enough that an arc
from the buoy severed the cable and the buoy was lost.
2) If the above is true, would this work for beanstalks? By "beanstalk" I
mean an "orbital elevator"; a structure that runs from the planet's surface
up to a satelite in a geo-stationary orbit so that a person could travel to
orbit just like riding an elevator. It seems that such a structure, if
properly conductive, could generate a whole lot of electricity.
If this won't work, could you explain why?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:14:06 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant'
At 07:59 PM 12/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>This brings up more questions. Is there really a difference between an
>individual born with a genetic mutation and an individual falling into the
>"vat of radioactive sludge?" I'm not seeing much of a difference here.
>
>If superman were subjected to something more than a superficial medical
>exam, would he appear to have genetic mutations when compared to a norm?
>Would it be logical to presume that most aliens, while human in appearance,
>would appear quite different in a medical examination?
>
>(Sory folks, I come from a comic deficient childhood. I'm not familiar with
>comic heroes outside the most popular.)
>
>Regards,
>Eric.
>
>
I am reminded of a rationalization Marvel came up with not so long ago:
In the 1960's, radiation was a strange an powerful force and it seemed to
make sense that a person bitten by a spider that had just been exposed to
lots of radiation might develop spider-like traits. In the 1990's, we know
better. In this light, Peter Parker was probably a mutant who's latent
powers were triggered by the spider bite.
But of course, that would change everything. Like having Spidey show up on
mutant detectors. Of course, I seem to recall Master Mold using his Mutant
Detector and deciding that all people on the earth were mutants at one point.
Unless you, the GM, say so, no particular power is restricted to mutants.
"I'm not really flying, I'm using the power of my mind to push on the
ground. I learned it in Tibet." "I'm using magic." "I'm tapping into the
hidden potential that all humans have." Basicly, it's all special effects.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:27:48 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Take a look at these power concepts.
At 01:08 PM 12/7/98 +1000, you wrote:
> Here are a few power concepts a player of mine came up with. . . what
>do you think of them? 1: A multipower framework with 21 slots, with a 60
>pt pool, all apparently 'vampire powers' (including raw stat bonuses and
>so forth), roughly half with ultra slots.
I see nothing inherantly wrong with it as described, but I could get WAY
abusive with that if I tried. I'd have to see it.
2: A character wth a set of
>multiforms specifically intended (according to the player) to purchase 'as
>many powers as possible' for as cheap a price as possible (this for a
>were-creature(not a shapeshifter for instance), as opposed to an
>infinite-man or any sfx which would reasonably explain it, as far as i
>could tell)
I'm not sure I understand, but I have 2 comments:
"specifically intended (according to the player) to purchase 'as
>many powers as possible' for as cheap a price as possible "
No you don't, not in my campaign, No, No, No. Come back with a _concept_.
One of the most fun guys I ever played with was an abusive rules-lawyer.
He used to design characters just to tweak the rules. He had a guy with
Multiform. I guess the GM had misread the rules or had a bad house rule,
but this guy would change form at the end of each segment into a form that
acted in the next segment, letting him act in all 12 segments. Also, one
of his forms had some major Hunteds. _I_ wouldn't allow this, but the guy
was fun to play with.
3: A character with an 8d6 hka and a 12 spd who only had 12
>def, in a relativly standard superheroic campaign- All of the
>characters powers were brought with various foci.
Lemme get this straight, a Move By has a fair chance of knocking him out.
Am I right? Stupid design. Not your fault.
Upon stating over the
>months in turn that each of these power constructs were invalid, the
>player has insisted that I was the one comitting a protocol transgression,
>despite my specifically stating in advance that I reserved the right to
>reject any power concept on inspection. In each case the player neglected
>to reveal the construct in question until the last possible moment, and
>insisted that the amount of time he had spent working on the No other
>player has made objections of any sort to my conduct in this or any other
>game. Question to the list, what would your own jugements be on these
>power constructs as far as wether they are valid, in terms of a normal
>superheroic setting. Also, what type of reaction would you have to a
>player with this attitude? I welcome any sort of response, positive,
>negative, or (like myself) mildly amused. ""
This player seems to have a very bad attitude and I'd show him the door
before he starts dragging the others down. If he seems salvageable, ask
him to let you help him build a character. Try to get him a character who
augments each other member of the team instead of a one-man powerhouse.
But frankly, he sounds like a jerk.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:35:09 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Magic Lock
At 07:24 PM 12/7/98 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>> I know -how- to construct the power; I was asking for help in constructing
>> it with fewer AP.
>
>I haven't seen anyone post the flaw with buying it as an Entangle yet:
>no need for all of the advantages to keep it going, seels the doors by
>slapping a Defense and Body (or one or the other, with the right
>limitations) on the locks, and so on. But I assume there is a problem
>with it.
Well, not for me. I like that solution and the Force Walls solution. I'm
going to play with both and see what happens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Hold it the greatest wrong to prefer life to honor
and for the sake of life to lose the reason for living."
Juvenal, Satires
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:17:08 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Durability of Various Things
>Rat, I'm disappointed in you.
>
>No breakdown in champs terms as to the amount of body done to the
>Cherokee, cycle and rider? ;)
>
>Actually, seriously, it would be interesting to compare how this 'real
>world' matches up to Champs terms. If you were to build the bike, the
>Cherokee and recreate the accident, would the results be the same in
>Champs? (ie, minimal body done to the Cherokee, total destruction of
>the cycle and (apparently) minimal body to the driver of the bike?)
I'd have to go back and look at what velocity Rat said it was going, but I
suspect not; in the real world relative mass is an issue in a way the game
does not deal with.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:18:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Dale Ward <daleaward@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic but tangential
Greetings!
- ---geoff heald wrote:
>
> I have a multi-part question relating to the real world, physics, and sci fi.
> 1) My brother says he saw something on TV about a recent Space Shuttle
> mission with an interesting experiment aboard. If anybody can confirm
<SNIP>
I recall hearing something third hand about a tethered satellite getting
loose because the tether broke, but I can't confirm either THAT story or
yours... sorry.
> 2) If the above is true, would this work for beanstalks? By "beanstalk" I
<SNIP>
> orbit just like riding an elevator. It seems that such a structure, if
> properly conductive, could generate a whole lot of electricity.
>
> If this won't work, could you explain why?
I don't think it would work because the conductor (the wire or the
beanstalk) needs to be moving through the magnetic field. In the case you
have specified, the conductor (being anchored to the ground) is not moving
relative to the magnetic field (which rotates with the Earth).
Interesting notion, though. Could make a decent scenario if fleshed out
sufficiently. Possible rationale for power producing satellites... pronounced
"terrorist targets".
Dale A. Ward
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:10:16 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Off Topic but tangential
>If you move a copper wire through a magnetic field, it makes electricity.
>The earth has a magnetic field. A satelite or space station could,
>therefore, generate some electricity by using a long copper wire. The
>experiment, says my brother, had a copper wire strung out from the shuttle
>with a buoy-thing on the end to see how much current it would produce. It
>produced much more current that they thought possable; enough that an arc
>from the buoy severed the cable and the buoy was lost.
Actually gold would work better, it is a better conductor, but it works
yes, they generated so much energy they almost cooked the device they were
using.
>2) If the above is true, would this work for beanstalks? By "beanstalk" I
>mean an "orbital elevator"; a structure that runs from the planet's surface
>up to a satelite in a geo-stationary orbit so that a person could travel to
>orbit just like riding an elevator. It seems that such a structure, if
>properly conductive, could generate a whole lot of electricity.
As I understand it the reason it works is because you are moving THROUGH
the electromagnetic field, rather than tethered to the planet and moving
WITH it. In other words, they beanstalk would (hopefully) be stationary
relative to the field and not generate the energy that they would want.
But there is evidence it would anyway and make travel on it somewhat...
interesting
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:54:34 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: The Mountie
Dave Mattingly wrote:
> In terms of other cartoons brought to life, he recently starred as George of
> the Jungle. Otherwise, he's a fairly talented character actor who mostly
> does really goofy roles.
Ah, blinding flash! I know who you mean. Thanks.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 02:49:05 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: Take a look at these power concepts.
At 07:24 AM 12/7/98 -0800, Jay P Hailey wrote:
>They look abusive to me. The Cyberpunk players have a word for this.
>"Munchkin" The Munchkin doesn't care for role playing or play balance or
>anything that makes RPGs fun to a rational, mature mind. He wants his
>character to waste everything in his path without breaking a sweat as a
>salve to the players own pathetic self esteem.
For what it's worth, use of the term "munchkin" to describe disruptive
players, especially of a power-greedy variety, is fairly broadly spread, and
certainly predates Cyberpunk (cf. "The Four Gamers" document located at
numerous web pages).
- --
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing." -- attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the SoapVox at http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:37:12 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Brian Wawrow wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> Give me a break. I've scrapped FH monsters with more than 120 BOD, as
> well as damage reduction. That 100 million BOD looks about right to me.
> I'd also give a planet 75% resistant damage reduction and heavy regen.
> Yes, I realize that makes the Death Star very very expensive to buy but
> then you wouldn't want every two bit galactic empire to have their own
> death star, would you? I don't care what tables and charts you've got,
> the earth is something that we geologists refer to as Very Very Big. A
> football team has more than 120 BOD.
>
> If you come around to my way of thinking, it results in a great sense of
> security and well being. Even if there's a plane crash today [great big
> move through], the Earth keeps turning. Yaaaaay! Earth!
How to build a death star is easy without needing to call the total
body of a planet only 90 with all the problems that go with it.
The death star laser can be designed as a 6D6 KE AoE 8000 km radius
(random pluck on both numbers, scale to fit personal taste.) The attack
has whatever advantage you want to define as being able to be centered
on the inside of a solid object. You can make it individual damage per
hex to allow some hexes to survive more or less intact to make the
rubble.
Its not cheap but throw enough disads on it will bring the price down
to something that can at least be justified.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:52:27 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> I simply think it's not consistent with other parts of the system, and
> particularly in superheroic or space opera campaigns can cause all kinds of
> ugly border conditions. Frankly, breaking the Earth into Hexes doesn't help
> much anyway; in that approach, someone simply takes, say, a 6D6KA and buys
> it Radius with a pile of area multiples.
I hadn't read this when I sent the last post... with a 6D6KA with scads
of extra radius. But getting back to the first part of what you wrote,
whats inconsistant with the approach of doing it hex by hex. If you
have an AoE or explosion attack, you apply the damage hex by hex. Lets
face it, thats what happens in the real world when an explosion goes
off. That is after all what makes the crater.
The problem is coming up with something that is workable, consistant
and doesn't create more problems than it fixes. Using the barrier rules
doesn't work for a planet. However, there are many tools available to
let people work out how much damage a hex or object or person can take
without causing a nightmare to occur about side effects.
>
> BYTB, the plane crash/move through thing often brought up is a bogeyman,
> since the plane would have to have a 90 DEF+BODY to do that sort of damage
> anyway.
True. But if you set of a pile of nukes in one location so that the
total damage rolled comes out to be 90 body, you don't end up wondering
what the hell happened to the planet that was just here. Or try
replacing the plane with some superfreak who has 50 defence and 20 body
and hence able to do and take 90 body before becoming so much red
paint. No way can it be used to wipe out the planet. And I have (had)
somebody who has those sort of stats, although he hasn't tried this sort
of stunt.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 19:20:35 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Off Topic but tangential
geoff heald wrote:
>
> I have a multi-part question relating to the real world, physics, and sci fi.
> 1) My brother says he saw something on TV about a recent Space Shuttle
> mission with an interesting experiment aboard. If anybody can confirm
> this, please do. And cite sources, because I'd rather say "it was in
> Popular Science" or "it was on the Discovery Channel" than "My brother says
> he saw it on TV." It was like this:
> If you move a copper wire through a magnetic field, it makes electricity.
> The earth has a magnetic field. A satelite or space station could,
> therefore, generate some electricity by using a long copper wire. The
> experiment, says my brother, had a copper wire strung out from the shuttle
> with a buoy-thing on the end to see how much current it would produce. It
> produced much more current that they thought possable; enough that an arc
> from the buoy severed the cable and the buoy was lost.
I seem to remember something about this, at least about the cable being
severed by something. The effect can be done. The drawback is that
passing a wire through a magnetic field not only produces a current but
also produces a force that will alter the orbit of the device, either
higher or lower depending on the direction of current flow.
> 2) If the above is true, would this work for beanstalks? By "beanstalk" I
> mean an "orbital elevator"; a structure that runs from the planet's surface
> up to a satelite in a geo-stationary orbit so that a person could travel to
> orbit just like riding an elevator. It seems that such a structure, if
> properly conductive, could generate a whole lot of electricity.
>
> If this won't work, could you explain why?
It wont work because it is not passing through the magnetic field. It
is in a fixed location relative to the planet and the field. However,
while it will take a large amount of power to raise the package to the
top of the tether, you get much of it back on the way down by connecting
a generator to the cable.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 06:54:01 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Jay Ward movies
Oops! Sent this reply to Dave Mattingly instead of back to the list...
At 08:32 PM 12/7/1998 -0500, BobG wrote:
>> It's interesting to note that, with these two films plus a Rocky and
>>Bullwinkle movie currently being cast, there seems to be a resurgence of
>>interest in Jay Ward's work recently. All we need now is a Tom Swift movie
>>(and I nominate Brendan Frazer for the role!).
Er, Tom Swift, Victor Appleton's boy inventor? Or Tom Slick, dashing
driver of the Thunderbolt Greaseslapper?
And what about David Spade as Superchicken?
Damon
- ----------------------
"There's no such word as 'give up' in auto racing, Marigold."
"And why is that, Tom?"
"Because 'give up' is two words."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:30:00 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
> How to build a death star is easy without needing to call the total
>body of a planet only 90 with all the problems that go with it.
Actually, one small correction...I think the 90 figure was for a one hex
wide hole through the planet. Not that this makes a huge difference given
the doubling rule, but just to keep it straight.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:28:09 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>> I simply think it's not consistent with other parts of the system, and
>> particularly in superheroic or space opera campaigns can cause all kinds of
>> ugly border conditions. Frankly, breaking the Earth into Hexes doesn't help
>> much anyway; in that approach, someone simply takes, say, a 6D6KA and buys
>> it Radius with a pile of area multiples.
>
> I hadn't read this when I sent the last post... with a 6D6KA with scads
>of extra radius. But getting back to the first part of what you wrote,
>whats inconsistant with the approach of doing it hex by hex. If you
>have an AoE or explosion attack, you apply the damage hex by hex. Lets
>face it, thats what happens in the real world when an explosion goes
>off. That is after all what makes the crater.
>
I mentioned it before. Does the giant monster take damage per hex? How
about the guy with Growth? Both of the above will quickly be more than one
hex in size. Not to mention, everything increases by the doubling rational
until it hits more than one hex, and it suddenly goes linear.
> The problem is coming up with something that is workable, consistant
>and doesn't create more problems than it fixes. Using the barrier rules
>doesn't work for a planet. However, there are many tools available to
>let people work out how much damage a hex or object or person can take
>without causing a nightmare to occur about side effects.
See above. I think this _is_ a nightmare. it doesn't fit with the rest of
the system well.
>
>>
>> BYTB, the plane crash/move through thing often brought up is a bogeyman,
>> since the plane would have to have a 90 DEF+BODY to do that sort of damage
>> anyway.
>
> True. But if you set of a pile of nukes in one location so that the
>total damage rolled comes out to be 90 body, you don't end up wondering
>what the hell happened to the planet that was just here. Or try
But as I've pointed out, that's not just a problem with planets. You even
run into that with animals, where any attack sufficient to penetrate their
defenses is enough to kill them, given a fairly low number of attacks.
That's my problem with this as a solution; it takes an endemic problem and
applies a patch. And one that produces a sudden discontinuity in the system
as soon as any object is larger than one hex in size.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:50:28 -0500
From: "Stang, Mark" <mstang@psd.compucom.com>
Subject: RE: [Fuzion] Off Topic but tangential
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geoff heald [mailto:gheald@worldnet.att.net]
>Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 11:01 PM
>To: champ-l@sysabend.org; cp2020@laflash.ml.org; fuzion@dour.org;
>mektonz@mecha.com
>Subject: [Fuzion] Off Topic but tangential
>
>
>I have a multi-part question relating to the real world,
>physics, and sci fi.
>1) My brother says he saw something on TV about a recent Space Shuttle
>mission with an interesting experiment aboard. If anybody can confirm
>this, please do. And cite sources, because I'd rather say "it was in
>Popular Science" or "it was on the Discovery Channel" than "My
>brother says
>he saw it on TV." It was like this:
>If you move a copper wire through a magnetic field, it makes
>electricity.
>The earth has a magnetic field. A satelite or space station could,
>therefore, generate some electricity by using a long copper wire. The
>experiment, says my brother, had a copper wire strung out from
>the shuttle
>with a buoy-thing on the end to see how much current it would
>produce. It
>produced much more current that they thought possable; enough
>that an arc
>from the buoy severed the cable and the buoy was lost.
I don't know about the experiment, but the physics is correct
>
>2) If the above is true, would this work for beanstalks? By
>"beanstalk" I
>mean an "orbital elevator"; a structure that runs from the
>planet's surface
>up to a satelite in a geo-stationary orbit so that a person
>could travel to
>orbit just like riding an elevator. It seems that such a structure, if
>properly conductive, could generate a whole lot of electricity.
>
>If this won't work, could you explain why?
It won't because these are two seperate situations. In the first, the
experiment (or satellite) is orbitting rapidly around the earth, crossing
the lines of magnetic flux. In the second, the beanstalk (or geosynch
satellite) moves in sync with the earth and does not cross (or at least only
slowly crosses) the magnetic flux lines.
>
>
>
>***************************************************************
>**********
>To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
>majordomo@dour.org with 'unsubscribe fuzion' as the body of
>the message.
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 00:25:06 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant'
- -----Original Message-----
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
> In this light, Peter Parker was probably a mutant who's latent
>powers were triggered by the spider bite.
wierd thought- spidey has psudo-psycic powers- his spider sense
is psycic, (as 'proven' by bane's precog abilities), so get this-
using his subconcious precognition, teenage nerdy petey subconciously
travels
to the EXACT time and place which enables him to get super-powers!
The radioactive spider would NEVER do that, apart from ths one flukey
time in history, but psycic pete played the numbers with style!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 23:14:34 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: AP/Penetrating question
Canon or no, that seems a rather crippling view of the advantage.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: AP/Penetrating question
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"JJ" == James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to> writes:
>
>JJ> Really? Interesting. So you'd take multiple levels of Pen to get the
>JJ> effect I was describing? I find that acceptable.
>
>No; you can buy multiple levels of Armor Piercing, but you cannot buy
>multiple levels of Penetrating (unless the GM institutes a house rule).
>And even if you have 30 levels of AP in addition to Penetrating, my one
>level of Hardened will still negate one level of AP and your Penetrating.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
>Charset: noconv
>
>iQA/AwUBNmvp6IJfryJUlUjZEQLAPgCeJVetjiDNJERMPyX+8vmD9Ej1gDYAnRSW
>fUtU5GgPJS63wKWBbIEM5Laf
>=n+HU
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should
be
>PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
> \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:51:58 EST
From: Leuszler@aol.com
Subject: Re: Take a look at these power concepts.
In a message dated 12/7/98 2:38:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, tdj723@webtv.net
writes:
> Have you thought about--God, I hate suggesting this--insisting he submit
> character concepts BEFORE building the characters? Or asking him to
> come up with a concept, then saying, "Right, I'll take it from
> here--I'll build your character so it will work within the framework of
> my gameworld and not unbalance the game"?
This is how most of the characters in my games are done, unless the player is
an experienced GM of the game. My first Champions campaign was co- GMed by a
buddy of mine and myself. We took turns running adventures, and worked out
this system for character creation. We also sometimes just made up extra PC's
for use by "visiting heroes" that ended up being used by our regular players.
It saves a lot of game time when you don't have to sit around on the first
adventure revising everyone's character. And like you said, it will help to
keep the character within the framework of my gameworld and not unbalance the
game.
Mike Leuszler
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:33:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: On-line comic
Go here:
http://www.thegifted.com/
For an interesting comic experience. Pity there are only 18 pages up so
far...
Oh, and use a fast connection.
Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 08:04:31 -0600
From: redbf@ldd.net (bobby farris)
Subject: Re: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
Curtis A Gibson wrote:
> Everyone listen up,
> This here is some information I've uncovered, and I want to spread it
> quickly before _they_ catch up with me.
> You ever wonder why normal rational people go nuts for beanie
> babies...it's a plot. A Dr Destroyer plot. You see, he took the
> technology from his hypno satalite and minturized it. He has planted
> these in the beanie babies, disguised as some of the 'beans'. Right now
> all these insidous mind control devices are broadcasting are "Buy Beanie
> Babie, Buy lots of them, love them, no matter what the cost".
> The thing is these little computers have all sorts of other programming.
> Destroyer is gathering information about all of us this way, and
> isolating those that have minds and wills that he can manipulate.
> Soon, very soon, the electronics in these little things will be
> broadcasting a new message, a message of servitude to the will of Doctor
> Destroyer. And how can the SuperHeroes save us then, they can't go
> around slaughtering normals under Destroyers control (Well except for
> Harbinger).
> Save yourselves. Get rid of the insidous things at once.
I thank you. I was looking for an idea to fill in sometime in the
campaign. My group is going to hate you, but I thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 23:56:31 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
- -----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Perfect Cell vs Devourer of Worlds
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>>>>well, check out TUSV when it's out, plus
>>>>i may place a link to my 3da system on the list
>>>>if i get it onto a page before christmas. In it, each *hex*
>>>>has a body score. ..
>>>
>>>Not sure that makes sense though. After all, giant monsters and robots
are
>>>often more than one hex, but they still only have one Body score.
>>>
>>
>>
>>wel, it sets things up in tables including all the hexes, plotting
>>movement of projectiles in terms of modules, hulls and superstructure. .
>
>What I'm saying is you shouldn't have sudden huge difference between, say,
a
>80 hex robot, an 80 hex monster, and a 80 hex starship. If either of the
>former has a grand total 40 Body, and the latter has 20 Body (or even 10
>Body) per hex, something is screwy.
>
Like i said, its a major change. in different version of the idea,
both body and size are altered in cost. Basically the only hexes with this
'base' body are the hull and superstructure- now with damage to even ONE
hex, especially of superstructure, there's an
increasing chance of that part of the ship (and then the whole ship)
disingergrating.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 00:15:57 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant'
- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert Harrison <rharriso@iastate.edu>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant'
> If somebody acquired super-strength from falling in a vat of
>radioactive sludge (or being bitten by a radioactive spider), mutation
>wasn't the mechanism for this. The same mutation that confers
>super-strength would have to occur in every cell (or almost every cell) in
>the person's muscles, which is highly unlikely.
- - it's worst than you say. In order to be superhumanly strong
you would need alterations to muscles, bones, cartilage(sp), the peripheral
nervous
system (to avoid it be squiched) the tissue anchoring organs at various
points. . ect, ect,
all with varying forms of alteration.
> It is more likely that
>this person will sire offspring with super-powers, as his or her germ-line
>cells (spermatozoa/oocytes) presumably will acquire mutations, and these
>mutations will occur in every cell of the progeny that arise from the
>mutated germ cells. A post-fertilization/development event that causes the
>same mutation to occur in every cell of an individual would require a
>rather fanciful explanation.
it could be more likely than you'd suggest- for instance a tailoured virus
that retroactivly splices data into
all nuclei would be more plausable than an acciddent, or a bioagent that
spreads similarly,
resulting in some wierd combinaiton of old dna. Unless you mean every single
last cell? That never happens
post-fertilisation, it's kinda a redundant comment, imhho.
It's also kinda needed- you aren't just mutating muscles, but bones, nerves,
everything really.
If we're being plausable, a genetic alteration would HAVE to occur in a
great any places, in a great many ways, or it would be in no way beneficial
to the degree suggested.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:57:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Rick Jones <rick@blkbox.com>
Subject: Re: How do you define 'mutant'
thomas deja wrote:
> This might be a bit off-topic, but I never understood how people like
> Genocide could say 'mutants are wrong, but you other freaks are okay.'
> Human-firsters should be scared of ALL 'natural' metas, because all
> metas might have the potential to pass on their altered physiology.
Well, groups like Genocide take a nod from the Marvel "stinkin' mutie"
line, which, if you look at it for a minute, is completely silly. How
someone can say the ever-lovin' blue-eyed Thing is okay but Kitty Pryde is
a freak who must be put down is beyond me.
Marvel uses "mutant" as a metaphor for racism in the real world. As such,
it doesn't always make sense.
Of course, how someone can say that someone is worthless based on the
color of their skin is equally beyond me.
It's racism. It's not supposed to make sense.
- --
Rick Jones Babylon 5 was the last of the Babylon stations. There would
rick@blkbox.com never be another. It changed the future, and it changed us. It
taught us that we had to create the future, or others will do
it for us.
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/ --Ivanova,Babylon 5, Sleeping In Light
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 07:29:11 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
At 10:14 PM 12/7/98 -0700, Curtis A Gibson wrote:
>Everyone listen up,
>
>This here is some information I've uncovered, and I want to spread it
>quickly before _they_ catch up with me.
>
>You ever wonder why normal rational people go nuts for beanie
>babies...it's a plot. A Dr Destroyer plot.
Are you sure? It sounds a bit more like a Foxbat ploy to me.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:42:04 EST
From: Leuszler@aol.com
Subject: Re: The Beany baby/Dr Destroyer Connection
Furbees, or Furbys, or however the hell you spell it. Do it with Furbees. Or
better yet, you're at your parents house, looking through the attic at your
old toys and stuff, when your sisters Cabbage Patch doll rises up, and sears
you with an energy blast from it's cute little eyes. (Doctor Destroyer came
up with this plan a long time ago.)
Mike Leuszler
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #81
****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 01:51 PM