RE: Thanks, but I might have another one...

Reading ahead and Questions by Church on 2011-08-30 12:01:00 UTC Reply

Hey guys.

Well, since I'll be here for a month before I potentially get cracking, I have delved into the Unclaimed Badfic section and am currently discetting a possible fic to spork: "Commissar Cain in deep". Problem is, I am about halfway through and already my notes are screaming at me in ire - thank heavens for the summary at the beginning, whoever typed that warning out.

On another note, I have a couple of questions.

Fist, the Department of Floaters: do they have a specific equipment loadout like the anti-Suers/Slashers/Plot-Holers, or do they select the appropriate equipment based on their best analysis to deal woth the mission at hand?

Second, oweing to the fact that they have to traverse multiple universes, which are usually not their resident universe, are agents able to procure or have forged appropriate weapons for the mission, regardless of rarity (with the exception of unique items, such as the One Ring from LoTR)?

Answers by Sergio Turbo on 2011-08-30 12:27:00 UTC Reply

*dodges the fist of the first question* Floaters are basically the "overflow" department: they are supposed to be able to spork whatever fic they get, so they tend to have "basic" equipment (Remote Activator for portals, CADs and so on), plus the things needed for the particular mission (weapons for Sue slaying, canon sources for exorcism, et cetera). However, feel free to play out this as you like: if the Agents lack the right tech, they have to improvise, and improvisation is equal to laughs.

About weapons, we have an Armoury in HQ, so nearly every standard weapon is avaible. The best course of action IMHO is to get a sword/other melee weapon and a gun, in order to cover most continua. Sometimes weapons can be "obtained" as part of the disguise if it is iconical to whatever the Agent is disguising as (such as blasters for Star Wars clone troopers/imperial army)

RE: Thanks, but I might have another one... by Church on 2011-08-30 12:44:00 UTC Reply

Hmm, I see.

The reason I am asking is that, regarding the potential sporking (which I'll have to delay until a month and a half from now) is that the fic in question is basically mindless PWP - and on top of that, it is bad. I mean BAD!

Desperate times call for desperate measures and one agent, in the guise of a Grey Knight of the Ordo Malleus and with a forged Nemesis Force Halbeird, plans to ensure the method to stop this travesty is final...

On another note, the DORKS. According to the wiki, this only allows an agent to take on the form of a person from the appropriate 'verse and, correct me if I'm wrong, does not confer any additional abilities on the agent while in that particular form (so, no Force wielding if disguised as a Jedi). Correct?

About DORKS by Sergio Turbo on 2011-08-30 14:39:00 UTC Reply

Yeah, that's about right. The DORKS is a hologram-like costume, it makes you look like a canonical but nothing more. The Disguise Generator, instead, allows you to become a canonically-correct character (so, not only it would give you Force when disguised as a Jedi, you ARE physically a Jedi)

Re: About DORKS by galenfea on 2011-08-31 15:19:00 UTC Reply

I assume it doesn't give you skills that rely on strength and muscle memory? I'm been writing that a rather unfit human disguised as a ranger gets the physical strength to use a sword, but not the training.

The disguise generator by Phobos on 2011-08-31 16:40:00 UTC Reply

Yes, anything that requires training is not going to be covered by the disguise generator. Unfortunately, for the original question, Force powers require extensive training. So, disguising as a Jedi could give you the ability to use the Force, but it will not give you the training to use it effectively. That could lead to a lot of comedy, though.

Re: The disguise generator by galenfea on 2011-08-31 16:43:00 UTC Reply

Good - my agents getting into a fight with a character replacement of Aragorn is the climax of my latest mission :)

OK by Church on 2011-08-30 15:04:00 UTC Reply

Right. Thanks for the clarification once again.