Re: MAGIC: Spelljamming Attn Paul W.

---Reply to mail from Paul Westermeyer about [SPELLJAMMER] - re: MAGIC: Spelljamming  Attn Paul W.


> I agree that merely touching an object does not require the helm to try and
> move it, that is clearly against the std rules. We disagree on the extent
> of "fastening" needed.
>
> Maybe this will clear my comments up. I think in deep spae a major helm on
> a flitter would allow that flitter to tow a Man-o-War, provided the rope
> used was strong enough to hold the forces (I'd argue a "std", thick
> nautical mooring line would suffice, provided the bollards were properly
> sunk on both vessel's decks).  However, when these two ships enter the
> atmosphere of a planet (and the planets gravity takes over) the man-o-war
> would plummet towards the earth, because the rope is not rigid.  If the
> rope and flitter were strong enough material wise to hold an elven flitter
> against gravity, the towing would continue with the man-o-war hanging
> beneath the flitter like a truck being carried beneath a helicopter.  But,
> of course, the forces here would be immense, and no flitter could actually
> support such weight so the man-o-war would rip the rope, or the flitter
> (because the helm would not have and problems with the weigth.

  This is where we disagree on the towing.  Since the helm is driving both
objects equally, the effect of external gravity (regardless of model) should be ignored.
Otherwise the vessel ought to crash when entering any atmosphere.

>
>>  I don't have the rules here but I believe the helm itself (in the sense
>>of normal helms minor and major) must be attached to the vessel in order
>>to be active. Merely putting a helm on the deck without anchoring it will
>>not work.  (Let me know if you can find this... I believe it to be true.
>>And if it is it is further corrobative evidence from the text.)
>
> No, this is quite true, a helm must be bolted to a vessel for it to work,
> this is in the text (sorry, no time to hunt for the quote).  But that
> doesn't really affect my problems here.


  Well I extrapolate my understanding from this requirement and the nearly
identical wording on towing.  Thats why I mentioned it.  I believe the
helm is providing both the tower and the towee with a unified
propulsive/bouyancy force.  In static's words an isolated inertial frame.

>
>>   This is not how I see it working.  Gravity's primary mechanism
>>is GOC(Gravity on Contact), the secondary mechanism is GAE(Gravity at
>>Envelope).
>
> Exactly, you interprete the gravity rules differently then I. Normally, I
> would just say "Cool":) but in this case your interpretation (IMO) makes it
> _much_ more difficult for people to suspend disbelieve and think SJ has
> little impact on the original TSR worlds (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, FR). Since
> one of the guiding conditions of the SJ concept seems to be just that I
> think your interpreatation detracts from "canon" SJ.


    On the other hand , the only thing it really does is detract with is
the possibility of bombardment.  That could be fixed with some minor
alterations. (Such as The helm only drives objects that are hollow or
something.)  OR a way to figure mass along with volume that a SJ helm can
drive.


And my model explains why low altitude tactics such as using a Floating SJ
as a weapons platform is not done. A single arrow attached to a rope would
be able to bring it down with a single hit (the other end is attached to a
post or anchored in the planet.  This explains why the SJ
would not have a front-line battle role but would rather be relegated to
supply and (if permitted) tactical bombing.  This fits in well with the
feel of how SJ vessels are currently treated. And explains a lack of
impact in groundling warfare, even in countries that are SJ aware.

And my model has the benefit of being consistent with all of the rules
presented in the WCC and the COAS without contradicting either...  A great
benefit for new players. This system also has clearly predictable
behaviour saving some "fantastic" features for the players to enjoy.


>
> integral rather then one-shot "Move you there" devices).  So they want a
> way to explain why their PCs had never encountered SJ before. Your gravity
> system makes this less likely, I believe.:)
>

  Why would this be so?  I'm not sure how the gravity model would affect
the rarity of SJ vessels.


>>   I hope that that makes more sense to you... hmm I guess you could call
>>this the Strong and Weak forces of gravity theory ;)
>>           -Steve
>
> We seem to be engaging somewhat in a clasical Humanist versus Scientist
> situation here:)  Not surprising when one compares our .sigs, I suppose:)
> I understand your system, I just dislike it for the reasons outlined
> aboved.

 Gotcha ;)



---End reply
--
+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++   Steven Swenson
### +++++++ ###   Technical Support Specialist
#### +++++ ####   Texas Micro Inc.
##### +++ #####   (800) 627-8700/(713) 541-8200 x110
###### + ######   (713) 541-8259 FAX
####### #######   steves@??????????.com
####### #######   scott@??????.????????.com