What exactly IS your interpritation of how Immunity to normal weapons works, from a descriptive standpoint. I went back and reviewed your posts and you never stated what that was. You have had a grand old time trying (and failing) to attack my assertions, but have offerned no real alternitive.


Got those cannon citations yet?

That is actually irrelavent, although I did supply two examples before.

Well if you are looking for direction from the books on how to describe it.

Coupled with all spirits being composed of:

Points towards spirits that look like water or fire or a brick outhouse or an eagle but are all equally as tough to shoot through as an APC (depending on Force of course).

Now if you want to make up a different description that is harder to reconcile with all parts of the book, that is your perogative. But it isn't the book being inconsistant with itself.

You are rehashing the same old ground Brahm. I ask for "fulff" you respond with "crunch". I have never disputed that how the mechanics function. Additionaly, how should (under your paridigm) the "Immunity to normal weapons" power of spirits be describe in the event of a non-penetration of an attack?

You have allready seen your comment regarding the "are largely composed of some kind of common arcane material regardless of apparent structure" quote refuted and its value to your argument shattered. (Your citation is taken out of context in an attempt to support your flawed logic.)

If you have nothing new to add then you sould simply give up and go home.

The phrase "then it bounces harmlessly off the critter" is "crunch", and therefore is ignorable? That's even richer. Oh there isn't much to add to that. Indeed it is time for me to give up on seeing any sort of sane reasoning out of you.

Only if it is a Cat spirit.

they've switched to the "royal we" and "master debater" mode. Generally once that happens right or wrong no longer matters (and I'm not saying you're right). By that point in the discussion the focus has switched from understanding viewpoints to negating them.

* The poor grammar was in the original post, not my quote

Yup. I am done. This has occupied far too much of my time allready.

So back on topic:
Posession does seem very powerfull, but how does it compare to materialization?

Second point:
What are some imaginitive things to have your spirits posess?

EDIT spelling.

Without further explaination of this seemingly rather unique split of "crunch"/"fluff" you have managed to evolve over these last "15 years"? Say it isn't so!

It appears to be fluff, but it also appears to possibly be a sarcastic writer. In context, I see a case for both. Especially considering I think I've seen sarcasm show up in several other points in the book. If it's just a writer being sarcastic, then it's not actually fluff, but writer commentary.

Now, I'm back to lurking when it comes to this topic.

Oh, don't egg him on further to get the last word. Let the thread be steered toward something more constructive.

If they follow the SR3 Loa example then probably not. Though really as long as the spirit is sympathetic to possessed goals I see little reason to not let the player control the now possessed character. Assuming that in real-life they don't qualify as unaware in their role-playing skill and that they don't abuse the priviledge by doing things the spirit obviously wouldn't do. ( For example someone possessed by a fire spirit wouldn't jump in a lake )

There is a metamagical ability that allows it. It's in Street Magic and it's called "Channeling" if I can recall right. There are a few minor downsides. There is also a sidebar that allows the PC to play "friendly" spirits who are rideing them.

Even without this however, the mage who summoned the spirit can allways give the spirit commands they are bound to obey. However the spirit does not have access to the mage's skills or abilities.

Call it fluff, call it comment, call it a pig tied up with a pretty bow. That this still the closest the book ever gets to describing the effect. It certainly provides no direct, or even indirect, statements about the Natural Immunity allowing physical attacks to pass through. So in truth Lebo77 has, with Devil's Advocate post, provided an excellent case against it. Without even getting into Street Magic where there is more.

In any event the unreconcilable contridiction between different parts of the books is an artifical creation of Lebo77's.

Hehe, but it is funny to read those statements from him. Ok, ok. So maybe it is also a waste of time to read them. Very well, I'll stop [publicly] enjoying a chuckle at his expense.

Are you familiar with Brahm? His "I'm done with this" translates roughly to "I'm done with this unless you don't let me have the last word, in which case I'll post again, even going so far as to repetitively post the same nonsensical thing every time you make a post aimed at me." LOL

But I've found if you keep poking back he eventually gets tired of it and wanders away, making life better for almost everyone involved.

Wow... managing to insult both Geekkake and myself in one go. Unless Geekkake's got a lot more estrogen than I'm thinking. Maybe next time, you can set a kitten on fire as part of a lesson in keeping cats off stoves.

Actually, you could have used this one instead. This is undeniably fluff:

However, Lobo's point may be based off of the text of the Engulf power, which does suggest some ability for objects and other such items to pass through an air spirit.

Just saying that your evidence was on very, very shaky ground.

Without even trying! Whoot! Seriously though, what are you talking about? The 'pig with a pretty bow' is refering to the section of text, the rose by another name as it were, if that is what is bothering you?

However you don't have to break the barrier of the spirit to be engulfed, it can just be changing form to mold around you, as though you were being swallowed.

If one part can be satisfied by A or B and another part strongly suggests A? Where does logic bring you down on?

Oh sure, it is 'shaky'. It is something that isn't explained extensively. Which makes the idea that there is an irreconcilable contradiction even sillier. Like I already said it is largely irrelavent which description is used, because [the lack of contradiction] is the point.

Now onto checkers. Black!

Fear the Tube.

-Frank

Um, go up to who you gave credit to the comment to...

Hey, I'm just suggesting basis. Like I said, I lack the book. But, I think Frank provided a much better comment you should pay attention to.

Except that you were trying to provide an example of fluff that was not contradicting the ruleset and instead provided something that is arguably not fluff. Whether or not it's fluff is what makes the evidence you provided shaky. If not fluff, you failed to support your own argument.

The Tube is Civilization!

James McMurray, the PA reference was to the Cardboard Tube Samurai.