I've decided I hate Beam Klaves

[Persell]

Re: Chain swords...

I would have preferred to see mono-molecular blades for the Alchemicals instead of beam klaives myself.

I've never understood this "mono-molecular" bullshit that seems to be a perennial favorite in sci-fi. Sure, I understand that "it's SO FUCKING SHARP that the cutting edge is only ONE MOLECULE THICK!" but what the fuck KEEPS such a blade that sharp? Seems like the first time it contacts ANY matter (including air) a number of molecules are going to be lost (owing to the way molecules bond to one another) and you're gonna be stuck with a "THREE molecule thick blade" . . . which isn't that much worse anyway.


So what's the big deal with ONE fucking molecule? It doesn't even SOUND particularly cool. Not neaqrly as cool as a blade made of light . . . or one that can cut sunlight, and people's words as they speak them.

 

[Jakk Bey]

Monoblades...


I've always liked the idea of mono-blades, because they are so damn thin. And damn near invisible. When I've used them in games, or in fiction, it's been in conjunction with a magnetic reinforcement that holds the chain true.


The Aztecs used mono-blades--or damn near close to it--with their obsidian scapels. The obsidian can shear that thin, and while it doesn't hold that kind of sharpness for long, when you can chop the head off a horse with a line of rocks set into a wooden stick, that is impressive.


Take that to the next level. A line of iron or even steel that is darned thin. Whisper thin, and held in place and in true without diviation by a magnetic field, and you've got fun.


And a hazard if you run real fast and don't watch what the heck you're doing. In my Cyberpunk games there was always a danger when using mollyblades that you could injure yourself. The idea was that the blade would extrude from the handle, held in place with a magnet, and then retract.


More fun than molly blades though, is just molly wire. Garrot. Trip lines. Damn near invisible netting that can allow a fella to slice his own hand off reaching in for something neat.


Comes down to it, what's your preference? Blade of light of the Unconquered Sun? Beam of energy? Blade of fire? Blade thin as a whisper and sharper than an fishwife's tongue?  


In another setting, I updated the Macautl--the Aztec obsidean blades. It was fun, and modular for quick replacement of blades. Another game got an update on the chain blade with whiskers of molly wire on a thicker blade that could punch through armor faster.  Had a setting where I combined molly blades with a disrupter that liquified flesh--causing nasty disfigurements but little damage on its own. Combined with a club or blade, or whirling blades, it could cut better than a ginsu because flesh was only so much Jell-O.


Depends. Comes down to it--it's all about style. And listed damage. If you can do 12L with blade of Soulsteel or blade of light, it's still the same amount of damage. It's just about style. Some folks dig on the style of a blade of light straight out of E. E. Smith and Star Wars, and some don't.

 

[Joseph]

Re: Chain swords...

...  but what the fuck KEEPS such a blade that sharp?

In an Exalted related setting?  Magic.

 

[Persell]

An example modified Grand Daiklaive I made using the more mechanical ideas I was referring to:
-Moonsilver Grand Daiklaive - End of Blasphemy (Artifact ****)


Spd +10, Acc +4, Dmg +12L, Def -1, Rt 3, Cmt 8 motes


-Powers:


1) Momentum Generation: Hundreds of tiny gyroscopes in the blade massively increase its momentum when swung.  Parry successes are halved (rounded up) when defending against its attacks, as the blade ploughs right through the defense. Attacks that are successfully dodged are likely to cause collateral damage to ground and/or walls near the individual swung at.  


2) Inspire Terror: Producing and emitting a faint Essence-derived pheremone whose manufacture was taught by a defender Custodian in the Deep Reaches, End of Blasphemy has a strong effect on those who would do harm to the Machine God or His loyal inhabitants.  Enemies of the Great Maker -- including, but not limited to, servants of the Void -- are stricken with panic at the sight of the wielder of End of Blasphemy, even if they normally lack the capacity for fear.  Subtract 2 dice from all their dice pools while in his presence.

That's really awesome. I too like the idea of super-tech for Auto's minions. I think the problem with beam klaives is that we automatically associate them with Star Wars. Since Star Wars has been around so long, and has been seen by so many people, anytime you hear of something as simple as a handle that generates a non-solid blade, you subconciously think light saber/ Star Wars. I think when they included this artifact they pandered to the fanboy/ fangirl aspect of it without really considering any other option. When I saw the one ranged charm that fired a shot similar to rail gun, I thought it was awesome, because it was different enough to be special (at least for me). These beam klaives are so similar though to light sabers, that it just doesn't do them any justice.

 

[Persell]

Re: Chain swords...

...  but what the fuck KEEPS such a blade that sharp?

In an Exalted related setting?  Magic.

Then why are we even bringing up molecules???

 

[StarHawk]

1. AMEN! I hate those lame-ass lightsaber ripoffs! I feel they don't really portray the whole cyborgs thing very well. Everyone else in my group feels they are neat and as a house rule have made they artifact rating 3, so my opinion on the subject has been ignored...


2. cyl's essence-edge-klave sounds neat, and I will try to bring that up should I join a game of Alchemicals.


3. Chainswords are neat, but I would sooner go with powerclaws.


4. Another (semi-lame) idea thought up by my group was a switch-blade-klave. Conseilable like the beamklave, but still a surf board on a stick like our old fashioned grand and standard daiklaves. Extended it would all sorts of sharp pointy gears and hinges to intimidate foes (if you liked) but had the functionailty of a daiklave.

 

[Jakk Bey]

Because it's a pseudo-scientific setting.  It's all crazy Steampunked out, and that means you've got all sorts of odd bits tacked onto the fantasy setting.  


Which is why Chain swords are even more fun.  One of the things I liked about Chris Bacchalo's Steampunk series was the elaborate blade that one of the enforcers used--a nasty glowing thingie, that cut through all crazy like a lightsaber, but it was bound up in an elaborate glyph--which might be more appropriate than just a copy cat light saber.  


Steampunk is just about the fun you can run with, giving Victorians and other savages the accoutrements of higher technology, and none of the social development.  Give it a little injection of Pulp fiction, and you've got fun.

 

[Flagg]

Bgiving Victorians and other savages the accoutrements of higher technology' date=' and none of the social development.[/quote']
You mean like modern Americans?


-S

 

[Jakk Bey]

No, the Victorian English and other Europeans were savages enough I think...

 

[Jakk Bey]

You use Modern Americans, you're looking at Tom Clancy Thrillers, and that's covered by enough spy games...

 

[Flagg]

No' date=' the Victorian English and other Europeans were savages enough I think...[/quote']
Yes, but they didn't have the modern technology + the lack of concurrent social development that we do.


Sure, modern Europeans (and others) are similar to us in that respect, but they're really just copycatting. Short-sighted abuse of technology is a distinctly American schtick.


-S

 

[Jakk Bey]

Then why do are there so many anime flicks out there?

 

[Jakk Bey]

Europeans fuck up fair often. They just have better PR. The Russians are champions at it, but control their press better. The Chinese are fantastic at it, and have similar control. South East Asia is doing marvelously, as are folks in South America and Africa. Let's be fair here.


Short sightedness isn't just an American trait. We just get better cover stories out of it to sell magazines...

 

[Flagg]

Short sightedness isn't just an American trait.

True, but shortsighted use of technology is. Like I said, if you see anyone else doing it, it's just because they're copycatting. We always create the innovations, use them recklessly, then the rest of the world follows suit. It's been this way since the Industrial Revolution.


Hell, look at the fucking A-bomb.


-S

 

[Persell]

Short sightedness isn't just an American trait.

True, but shortsighted use of technology is. Like I said, if you see anyone else doing it, it's just because they're copycatting. We always create the innovations, use them recklessly, then the rest of the world follows suit. It's been this way since the Industrial Revolution.


Hell, look at the fucking A-bomb.


-S

I thought we used the A-bomb quite sensibly, actually. What was reckless about our use of the A-Bomb? Hell, our nuclear weapons program was one of the LEAST reckless in the world throughout the 1950's and 60's. Look at what the fucking FRENCH managed to do when THEY got a hold of the technology. America's use of the atomic bomb, while regrettable, was not at all reckless or senseless. In fact, it was one of the most sober and carefully considered military decisions we've made.

 

[Flagg]

I thought we used the A-bomb quite sensibly, actually.

Really? Levelling entire cities full of innocent civilians and leaving the area poisoned with radioactivity for who knows how long wasn't reckless?


Forcibly evacuating the Bikini islanders and turning their home island into a slag heap wasn't reckless?


Exploding nukes in the upper atmosphere so that radioactive isotopes from them can now be found in nearly EVERY living organism on the planet was sensible?


Fuck that.


-S

 

[Joseph]

Exploding nukes in the upper atmosphere so that radioactive isotopes from them can now be found in nearly EVERY living organism on the planet was sensible?

Radioactive isotopes have been in living creatures long before then.  The incredibly faint traces that were added as you describe are pretty meaningless.


That said, I wouldn't call it reckless.  You might argue it was WRONG, and had BAD consequences, but it certainly wasn't reckless.  There was plenty of regard for the consequences (both actual and potential), it was simply decided the consequences were worth it.

 

[Flagg]

The incredibly faint traces that were added as you describe are pretty meaningless.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't think anyone really considered or modelled the long term consequences of it. We may not have even seen those consequences yet.


It's not even that exploding nukes was a bad mistake of the past. It's been done constantly from the 40s through the present. People KNOW that it produces all sorts of long lasting vile byproducts. They just don't give a shit because it helps buy them some temporary military and political clout. I think that's reckless.


-S

 

[cyl]

Heh... If I may add something to the debate.


I would not say the US are short sightened with the use of technology or weapons... and they're surely not the first ones to develop new techs... and yeah the french fucked up on that one... but... I'm French, and as I recognize the necessity of testing our nuclear weaponry (I guess that it served more the "prestige" of Chirac at that time like "look out... we have the nuke too "), I know that the A-bomb was a necessity at the time it was used.


Its use, and the killing of hundreds of civilians ended a conflict that could have destroyed even more lifes... so that is what I recognize sometimes in the US government and in the citizens of the US... pragmatism. Sometimes you just do what you have to do... without regards of being right or wrong... or what it could imply...it must be done.


But I agree with S, the side effects are not to be seen yet but within a few decades... that's what I liked in the first the Matrix movies... the paralelism of human and virus by Agent smith (check my quote :lol: ), and that's the awful truth... It's not that they don't give a damn about the consequences... it's just that, as they don't know what could derive from their actions with certainty... many governments make the wrong choices about nuclear/or weapons, or military technology, or pollution or many many things else... for their choice is about only one concern the present time, and the present necessity.


I will not go on further about politics and this kinda stuff, but... if we were not that addictive to our very eases of every day, that we all consider to be granted, maybe things could be different... Leaders make the wrong choices by attempting to preserve a way of living their and our quiet life, crushing the others, and maintaining them as low as possible so they and we can be as high as could be... and if americans are recently thought to be the masters in that art... trust me... we europeans have centuries of experience, and we still got the touch, what the hell do you think European Union is all about ?  :evil:


And to get back a little on the subject of Autochtonians... this is why the locust crusade exists... to preserve the life of Autochtonia at all cost...no matter what, who, how many, or how much is to be sacrified... the point is survival... no regards for the liking of the people of Creation...they're not to be considered in the plan, they are merely  justified casualties for the good of the autochtonian people. Nobody's right or wrong here... there's just two entities that try to survive... and as they don't consider each other equal or even simbiotic...they fight to the surrender or the death of one.

 

[cyl]

err yeh I know... sometimes I loose control on my hands and they type very nasty things for other's minds  :lol:

 

[Flagg]

I recognize the necessity of testing our nuclear weaponry

Why is it necessary? I think there have been sufficent tests to declare the technology proven. Especially for a "even if you win, you still lose" type of scenario like modern nuclear warfare.


Modern nuclear detonations aren't "tests", they're vieled threats. Everybody already knows that they work. It's a way of saying, "Watch the fuck out, we've got the bomb."


Is that purely necessary? Any civilized nation could just annouce that they had the bomb, show it off sufficently to prove that they have the technology, and avoid the immense devastation and fallout that results from a "test" explosion.

Its use, and the killing of hundreds of civilians ended a conflict that could have destroyed even more lifes...

Why were those innocent Japanese lives any less valuable than those of a bunch of trained killers (i.e. Allied soldiers)?


What justifies that decision?


And, BTW, Fat Man and Little Boy killed a LOT more than "hundreds".

Sometimes you just do what you have to do... without regards of being right or wrong... or what it could imply...it must be done.

That seems to be the very definition of reckless: acting without regards to rightness or consequnce.


-S

 

[Persell]

You, Stillborn, are victim to two important misconceptions:


1) You are conflating "reckless" with "bad" or "wrong." perhaps it was a BAD decision to use the atom bomb. Perhaps it was the WRONG thing to do. But it was certainly NOT reckless. The issue was carefully considered and the decision was made only with great reluctance and sobriety. To call the decision reckless is simply to display either ignorance of how the decision was made, or ignorance of what recklessness is exactly. So which kind of dumbass are you, Stillborn? The kind who doesn't know his history? Or the kind who doesn't know his English?


2) You are assuming that the decision to use the bom was a bad one, made for some clearly unjustified reason or other. The fact is, the decision was only made after Truman had good reason to believe that a conventional war would kill MORE people and consume MORE resources than dropping two atomic bombs on Japan would. He hoped, of course, that dropping the bombs would convince the Japanese to surrender, thus avoiding future bloodshed.


Had Japan not surrendered, the decisison would've been a blunder of epic proportions as not ONLY would countless thousands have died as a result of the bombs, but hundreds of thousands, if not millions more would've died in the conventional fighting to follow. Fortunately, Japan surrendered. Though we cannot say for sure how the fighting would've gone had the bomb not been utilized, Truman had every reason to believe it would've been catastrophic. And frankly, the information available to us today confirms this. It is almost certain that had Truman not utilized atomic weaponry, a million or more lives would've been lost over the next several years of fighting.

 

[Persell]

The incredibly faint traces that were added as you describe are pretty meaningless.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't think anyone really considered or modelled the long term consequences of it. We may not have even seen those consequences yet.


It's not even that exploding nukes was a bad mistake of the past. It's been done constantly from the 40s through the present. People KNOW that it produces all sorts of long lasting vile byproducts. They just don't give a shit because it helps buy them some temporary military and political clout. I think that's reckless.


-S

And I agree. But my comments were SPECIFICALLY regarding the military USE of the atom bomb, which only happened TWICE, you'll recall. And neither of those was reckless.

 

[Persell]

Any civilized nation could just annouce that they had the bomb, show it off sufficently to prove that they have the technology, and avoid the immense devastation and fallout that results from a "test" explosion.

Oh please. Modern day nuclear testing is LESS harmful to the environment than automobiles, second-hand smoke, and factory farming. There is no "immense devastation and fallout" that results from a modern day test explosion. Test explosions are no more harmful than the plants that make Hostess dessert cakes.

Why were those innocent Japanese lives any less valuable than those of a bunch of trained killers (i.e. Allied soldiers)?

They weren't. No one's saying they were. In fact, their lives were EQUALLY valuable . . . which is exactly why we killed them. Had we not dropped the atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, countless MORE people than actually died in that war would have died. It has nothing to do with certain people being more valuable than others, you fucking dumbass. It has to do with sheer numbers. LESS people were killed as the result of those two atomic blasts than would have died in the conventional warfare that could've occured instead.

What justifies that decision?

Simple: do you want more people dead, or less? Truman wanted less, and thus dropped the bomb. Perfectly justified decision, if you ask me. Would you have preferred MORE deaths, Stillborn?

And, BTW, Fat Man and Little Boy killed a LOT more than "hundreds".

But they killed a lot LESS than likely would've died fighting over the Japanese mainland in a conventional war.

 

[Andrew02]

Test explosions are no more harmful than the plants that make Hostess dessert cakes.

But are the results equally delicious? The question, "where's the cream filling?" has never been adequately answered with regard to nuclear testing. Until such a time as there is a tasy cream filling, testing must continue. That is the real flaw of nuclear arms: their results are not a consumable by the masses to equal satisfaction.[/b]