[BNW] [MATT} Power Armor/Power redux

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

> >From: crow_steve@hotmail.com
> >Subject: [MATT] Power Armor (was Re: [BNW] Crash & Burn)
> >
> >We wondered about that also last week.  Is the Armor from a Gadgeteer's
> >suit considered part of his "power" (as per page 176)?  (Particularly 
>given
> >that other than Armor amnd Armor attachments, no other real gadgets are
>described for Gadgeteers at this time.)
> >
>Nope. His power is making and maintaining the suit. The armor is not a part
>of his power.
> >

Granted, that explains why the Primers don't bother to send any Armogeddon 
suits after Patriot in the rulebook's comic strip. ;)  But...

While I hate to sound contradictory, there is at least one thing in the 
books themselves that contradicts the above, suggesting that Armor created 
by Gadgeteers _is_ considered a Power.

That is on page 49 of Ravaged Planet.  When talking about the Defiance 
attempt to rescue Patriot, it is mentioned that the delta-power negating 
field on New Alcatraz was turned up _and_ that the Armorgeddon Suits were 
"specially shielded" against it.

If they're not a Power, why could they be affected by a Power-dampening 
field?

The rules for a Gadgeteer "maintaining" his Gadget seem to be very specific. 
  He does it during the one hour a day and...that's it.  So the 
delta-dampening field wouldn't and shouldn't interfere with:  "making and 
maintaining the suit."  Primer Gadgeteers weren't trying to make or maintain 
a suit (one hopes!) during the Defiance break-in.

My initial reaction was the same as Matt's, but upon reading the rules and 
source material in a little more detail, they seem to go out of their way to 
say that the powers a Gadgeteer builds into a Gadget are indeed...well, 
ummm, Powers, and should be treated as such.  Kind of a focus for the 
Gadgeteer's own power, as it were.

Matt's statement could be supported within the context of the rules and 
stuff, but it's a bit more complicated, and a simpler explanation is usually 
better (Occam's Razor and all).

Such an explanation, that would sync more with Matt's statement, is that 
there is a closer interaction between a Gadgeteer and his Gadget then simply 
making and maintaining:  that he provides (albeit subconsciously) a 
continual and ongoing "support" of the Gadget's violation of the laws of 
physics.  And that a power-negation field cuts off that link.

This gets complicated because then the question of range-of-link comes to 
mind (presumably Delta Prime Gadgeteer/Mentors don't go out into the field 
with their charges).

*shrug* Hopefully this is stuff that might all be covered in some future 
Gadget/Gadgeteer Sourcebook.  Is that scheduled for the next year, Matt?  
It's one of those things I wouldn't mind taking a shot at if it isn't...  :)

---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com