Are there any TW weapons which cast Annihilate?

[Blue_Lion]

Uh no, sorry, but as I already pointed out that doesn't actually make sense and is a fallacy because they aren't equally valid. It's a spell with the intention to cause a deadly explosion via the interaction of summoned anti-matter with existing positive matter, it is therefor NOT just as likely that the spell would send back what it summoned if you hit max range as it is to explode the only likely option is that if it doesn't hit something before that point then at max range the containment force field would collapse causing it to detonate because again it's a spell meant to be a deadly weapon you aren't going to be tossing that sphere of anti-matter at a target you didn't want dead and you aren't going to want it sending the anti-matter back unused when a near miss explosion can still damage or kill the target. Seriously, you're trying to kill what you're tossing it at and a near-hit has a good chance of harming or killing the target, the last thing you'd want is to have it be harmless if it missed and nothing about the spell should lead anyone to think it would be.

No the spell intent is stated as damaging the thing struck not causing an explosion(the explosion is a secondary affect), so the fallacy lies in your logic not mine. The spell clearly says the affect is only triggered when it hits something not reaches it s range limit.(Although it could be ruled it hits the ground at its range limit do to gravity but nothing in the spell even implies that it creates mid air explosions.)

If you look at spells that summon an affect and not just creatures such as summon and control storms they affect ends at the duration. Note: annihilate is not listed as a summing spell but says it creates. So lets look at other magic affects that say they create something like this spell does and are not listed as summing. Phantom mount disappears if separated by more than 40', We also have a class called conjurer that create things that disappear at the end of the duration.

Sorry but no there's nothing fallacious in my logic, the spell is bringing anti-matter from another dimension (it's NOT creating it) which is contained within a magical force field meaning there's a material object there which the spell at no point even remotely implies it safely sends back if it reaches the effective range of the spell. Which again it's a highly destructive weapon it's not going to be made to do anything of the sort, and if the spell were as you insist going to be failing at that range given the ONLY thing of the spell active at that point is the force field that's shielding the anti-matter (which again is a physical object drawn from elsewhere) from the surrounding positive matter the only thing that can happen is the anti-matter loses its protection and explodes on contact with the surrounding positive matter.

For which you do realize that you're ridiculously twisting things when you try and treat the damage from the matter/anti-matter explosion as somehow minor or irrelevant when it's part and parcel with the event. The direct damage (i.e. matter that's annihilated by the anti-matter) is trivial in comparison to the damage from the explosion as all that matter being directly converted into energy is the actual main damaging effect. An ounce of anti-matter annihilating with an ounce of matter it's the explosive release of energy that's going to damage the surroundings the most. When that chunk of anti-matter reaches its range and the spell shielding it collapses it's going to explode and it's going to damage everything around it, it's not going to harmlessly vanish into the ether.

The fallacy is in the logic on both sides that either X or Y happens if it does not hit anything at max range, as the text does not state one way or the other. PG 150 of the book of magic says it creates the small black orb it then goes on to describe the spear as anti mater, at no point does it say force field, it does say it is sealed. Nothing in the text indicates a mid air explosion is possible. There are examples of force and things created stopping when the spell ends. It is not an absolute by RAW it is subject to a gms call. This is a dimensional spell not summing spell.

I am confused how am I treating the explosion as mirror or irrelevant, I said it was a secondary affect not the primary affect witch is what the spell said it was. The primary affect is the object struck takes 2d4X100 secondary effect every thing in 10' takes damage from a contained matter-antimatter explosion for 4d6X10. (I think you are forgetting that game physics and magic does not always match how things work by real physics and over looked the word contained in the description.)

[drewkitty ~..~]

The range is how far the sphere can be hurled by the mage via the magic.

There is no text about it not striking something & it just being banished back where it came from.
(This is Dilettantes and Delinquents where anything "summoned" is auto returned to where it was taken from at the end of the spell or when killed.)

So it will hit something...ether what it was aimed at or an collateral target. even if it is just the ground somewhere.

-------
Thou..... how would you handle the orb striking a Force Field that is greater then 10 feet away from what it is protecting?

[Blue_Lion]

The range is how far the sphere can be hurled by the mage via the magic.

There is no text about it not striking something & it just being banished back where it came from.

So it will hit something...ether what it was aimed at or an collateral target. even if it is just the ground somewhere.

-------
Thou..... how would you handle the orb striking a Force Field that is greater then 10 feet away from what it is protecting?

That Is reasonable but the debate was if it did not hit anything with one person claiming a mid air explosion and one claiming a fizzle, by the text neither case is true. And I took offense with some one claiming the others logic had to be wrong when his own logic was not RAW but his own opinion. (I even pointed out that it could be said to hit the ground but both midair explosion and fizzle are not supported by the text.)

[drewkitty ~..~]

My post was at the some place as yours was BL.

[Nightmask]

Uh no, sorry, but as I already pointed out that doesn't actually make sense and is a fallacy because they aren't equally valid. It's a spell with the intention to cause a deadly explosion via the interaction of summoned anti-matter with existing positive matter, it is therefor NOT just as likely that the spell would send back what it summoned if you hit max range as it is to explode the only likely option is that if it doesn't hit something before that point then at max range the containment force field would collapse causing it to detonate because again it's a spell meant to be a deadly weapon you aren't going to be tossing that sphere of anti-matter at a target you didn't want dead and you aren't going to want it sending the anti-matter back unused when a near miss explosion can still damage or kill the target. Seriously, you're trying to kill what you're tossing it at and a near-hit has a good chance of harming or killing the target, the last thing you'd want is to have it be harmless if it missed and nothing about the spell should lead anyone to think it would be.

No the spell intent is stated as damaging the thing struck not causing an explosion(the explosion is a secondary affect), so the fallacy lies in your logic not mine. The spell clearly says the affect is only triggered when it hits something not reaches it s range limit.(Although it could be ruled it hits the ground at its range limit do to gravity but nothing in the spell even implies that it creates mid air explosions.)

If you look at spells that summon an affect and not just creatures such as summon and control storms they affect ends at the duration. Note: annihilate is not listed as a summing spell but says it creates. So lets look at other magic affects that say they create something like this spell does and are not listed as summing. Phantom mount disappears if separated by more than 40', We also have a class called conjurer that create things that disappear at the end of the duration.

Sorry but no there's nothing fallacious in my logic, the spell is bringing anti-matter from another dimension (it's NOT creating it) which is contained within a magical force field meaning there's a material object there which the spell at no point even remotely implies it safely sends back if it reaches the effective range of the spell. Which again it's a highly destructive weapon it's not going to be made to do anything of the sort, and if the spell were as you insist going to be failing at that range given the ONLY thing of the spell active at that point is the force field that's shielding the anti-matter (which again is a physical object drawn from elsewhere) from the surrounding positive matter the only thing that can happen is the anti-matter loses its protection and explodes on contact with the surrounding positive matter.

For which you do realize that you're ridiculously twisting things when you try and treat the damage from the matter/anti-matter explosion as somehow minor or irrelevant when it's part and parcel with the event. The direct damage (i.e. matter that's annihilated by the anti-matter) is trivial in comparison to the damage from the explosion as all that matter being directly converted into energy is the actual main damaging effect. An ounce of anti-matter annihilating with an ounce of matter it's the explosive release of energy that's going to damage the surroundings the most. When that chunk of anti-matter reaches its range and the spell shielding it collapses it's going to explode and it's going to damage everything around it, it's not going to harmlessly vanish into the ether.

The fallacy is in the logic on both sides that either X or Y happens if it does not hit anything at max range, as the text does not state one way or the other. PG 150 of the book of magic says it creates the small black orb it then goes on to describe the spear as anti mater, at no point does it say force field, it does say it is sealed. Nothing in the text indicates a mid air explosion is possible. There are examples of force and things created stopping when the spell ends. It is not an absolute by RAW it is subject to a gms call. This is a dimensional spell not summing spell.

I am confused how am I treating the explosion as mirror or irrelevant, I said it was a secondary affect not the primary affect witch is what the spell said it was. The primary affect is the object struck takes 2d4X100 secondary effect every thing in 10' takes damage from a contained matter-antimatter explosion for 4d6X10. (I think you are forgetting that game physics and magic does not always match how things work by real physics and over looked the word contained in the description.)

So let's see here, you think a sphere of anti-matter could exist in the positive matter world without a barrier (say a FORCE FIELD) separating it from the material that it will instantly annihilate and convert into pure destructive energy? It's basically an anti-matter grenade, why would you even remotely think it would just harmlessly vanish?

Also no I haven't overlooked anything, you've got the point blank range explosion damage and the lesser damage that occurs at range but all the damage being dealt is from the explosive conversion of matter to energy when the matter and anti-matter interact.

[Blue_Lion]

Uh no, sorry, but as I already pointed out that doesn't actually make sense and is a fallacy because they aren't equally valid. It's a spell with the intention to cause a deadly explosion via the interaction of summoned anti-matter with existing positive matter, it is therefor NOT just as likely that the spell would send back what it summoned if you hit max range as it is to explode the only likely option is that if it doesn't hit something before that point then at max range the containment force field would collapse causing it to detonate because again it's a spell meant to be a deadly weapon you aren't going to be tossing that sphere of anti-matter at a target you didn't want dead and you aren't going to want it sending the anti-matter back unused when a near miss explosion can still damage or kill the target. Seriously, you're trying to kill what you're tossing it at and a near-hit has a good chance of harming or killing the target, the last thing you'd want is to have it be harmless if it missed and nothing about the spell should lead anyone to think it would be.

No the spell intent is stated as damaging the thing struck not causing an explosion(the explosion is a secondary affect), so the fallacy lies in your logic not mine. The spell clearly says the affect is only triggered when it hits something not reaches it s range limit.(Although it could be ruled it hits the ground at its range limit do to gravity but nothing in the spell even implies that it creates mid air explosions.)

If you look at spells that summon an affect and not just creatures such as summon and control storms they affect ends at the duration. Note: annihilate is not listed as a summing spell but says it creates. So lets look at other magic affects that say they create something like this spell does and are not listed as summing. Phantom mount disappears if separated by more than 40', We also have a class called conjurer that create things that disappear at the end of the duration.

Sorry but no there's nothing fallacious in my logic, the spell is bringing anti-matter from another dimension (it's NOT creating it) which is contained within a magical force field meaning there's a material object there which the spell at no point even remotely implies it safely sends back if it reaches the effective range of the spell. Which again it's a highly destructive weapon it's not going to be made to do anything of the sort, and if the spell were as you insist going to be failing at that range given the ONLY thing of the spell active at that point is the force field that's shielding the anti-matter (which again is a physical object drawn from elsewhere) from the surrounding positive matter the only thing that can happen is the anti-matter loses its protection and explodes on contact with the surrounding positive matter.

For which you do realize that you're ridiculously twisting things when you try and treat the damage from the matter/anti-matter explosion as somehow minor or irrelevant when it's part and parcel with the event. The direct damage (i.e. matter that's annihilated by the anti-matter) is trivial in comparison to the damage from the explosion as all that matter being directly converted into energy is the actual main damaging effect. An ounce of anti-matter annihilating with an ounce of matter it's the explosive release of energy that's going to damage the surroundings the most. When that chunk of anti-matter reaches its range and the spell shielding it collapses it's going to explode and it's going to damage everything around it, it's not going to harmlessly vanish into the ether.

The fallacy is in the logic on both sides that either X or Y happens if it does not hit anything at max range, as the text does not state one way or the other. PG 150 of the book of magic says it creates the small black orb it then goes on to describe the spear as anti mater, at no point does it say force field, it does say it is sealed. Nothing in the text indicates a mid air explosion is possible. There are examples of force and things created stopping when the spell ends. It is not an absolute by RAW it is subject to a gms call. This is a dimensional spell not summing spell.

I am confused how am I treating the explosion as mirror or irrelevant, I said it was a secondary affect not the primary affect witch is what the spell said it was. The primary affect is the object struck takes 2d4X100 secondary effect every thing in 10' takes damage from a contained matter-antimatter explosion for 4d6X10. (I think you are forgetting that game physics and magic does not always match how things work by real physics and over looked the word contained in the description.)

So let's see here, you think a sphere of anti-matter could exist in the positive matter world without a barrier (say a FORCE FIELD) separating it from the material that it will instantly annihilate and convert into pure destructive energy? It's basically an anti-matter grenade, why would you even remotely think it would just harmlessly vanish?

Also no I haven't overlooked anything, you've got the point blank range explosion damage and the lesser damage that occurs at range but all the damage being dealt is from the explosive conversion of matter to energy when the matter and anti-matter interact.

Force field is tech, this is magic plays by different set of rules.
The damage formula does not match how explosive damage is done in rifts. Primary target takes full damage every thing in blast radius takes half that. So the rules are not treating this as an straight up explosion.
The magical force containing the anti-mater remains in affect until it strikes something by text. Even after the it strikes the secondary explosion is still contained. So without text saying that if it hits nothing it explodes at max range that is not RAW, but a GM call. Without text saying it does not dissipate or is negated by the containing force collapsing in on it when it hits max range or that it is a GM call. This is combat spell with dimensional properties so it can be argued that the affect is the same as when any magic bolt reaches it max range as well.

In other words if it does not hit anything weather it dispates or explodes is a GMs call not RAW and for for either side to claim the others side logic in falis is in self wrong. Argumetns can be made either way and as we are dealing with magic and magic uses Metaphysics means it often operates outside of normal physics.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Calling the magic that contains the "bad radiological effects" of a Matter-antimatter annihilation explosion ether means the same thing. It means that there is no radiological poisoning those around the effect area. And there is no nuclear fall-out to worry about ether.

[Alrik Vas]

Force field is tech, this is magic plays by different set of rules.
The damage formula does not match how explosive damage is done in rifts. Primary target takes full damage every thing in blast radius takes half that. So the rules are not treating this as an straight up explosion.
The magical force containing the anti-mater remains in affect until it strikes something by text. Even after the it strikes the secondary explosion is still contained. So without text saying that if it hits nothing it explodes at max range that is not RAW, but a GM call. Without text saying it does not dissipate or is negated by the containing force collapsing in on it when it hits max range or that it is a GM call. This is combat spell with dimensional properties so it can be argued that the affect is the same as when any magic bolt reaches it max range as well.

In other words if it does not hit anything weather it dispates or explodes is a GMs call not RAW and for for either side to claim the others side logic in falis is in self wrong. Argumetns can be made either way and as we are dealing with magic and magic uses Metaphysics means it often operates outside of normal physics.

Given two options you are saying neither are supported by the rules. However it's more illogical to claim neither are correct. While it's true we don't have any hard information on whether it would explode or vanish at the end of the range, the assertion by the GM running the game is RAW via the golden rule because it isn't covered.

In any case, BL, I'd like to know what your own resolution is.

[Nightmask]

No the spell intent is stated as damaging the thing struck not causing an explosion(the explosion is a secondary affect), so the fallacy lies in your logic not mine. The spell clearly says the affect is only triggered when it hits something not reaches it s range limit.(Although it could be ruled it hits the ground at its range limit do to gravity but nothing in the spell even implies that it creates mid air explosions.)

If you look at spells that summon an affect and not just creatures such as summon and control storms they affect ends at the duration. Note: annihilate is not listed as a summing spell but says it creates. So lets look at other magic affects that say they create something like this spell does and are not listed as summing. Phantom mount disappears if separated by more than 40', We also have a class called conjurer that create things that disappear at the end of the duration.

Sorry but no there's nothing fallacious in my logic, the spell is bringing anti-matter from another dimension (it's NOT creating it) which is contained within a magical force field meaning there's a material object there which the spell at no point even remotely implies it safely sends back if it reaches the effective range of the spell. Which again it's a highly destructive weapon it's not going to be made to do anything of the sort, and if the spell were as you insist going to be failing at that range given the ONLY thing of the spell active at that point is the force field that's shielding the anti-matter (which again is a physical object drawn from elsewhere) from the surrounding positive matter the only thing that can happen is the anti-matter loses its protection and explodes on contact with the surrounding positive matter.

For which you do realize that you're ridiculously twisting things when you try and treat the damage from the matter/anti-matter explosion as somehow minor or irrelevant when it's part and parcel with the event. The direct damage (i.e. matter that's annihilated by the anti-matter) is trivial in comparison to the damage from the explosion as all that matter being directly converted into energy is the actual main damaging effect. An ounce of anti-matter annihilating with an ounce of matter it's the explosive release of energy that's going to damage the surroundings the most. When that chunk of anti-matter reaches its range and the spell shielding it collapses it's going to explode and it's going to damage everything around it, it's not going to harmlessly vanish into the ether.

The fallacy is in the logic on both sides that either X or Y happens if it does not hit anything at max range, as the text does not state one way or the other. PG 150 of the book of magic says it creates the small black orb it then goes on to describe the spear as anti mater, at no point does it say force field, it does say it is sealed. Nothing in the text indicates a mid air explosion is possible. There are examples of force and things created stopping when the spell ends. It is not an absolute by RAW it is subject to a gms call. This is a dimensional spell not summing spell.

I am confused how am I treating the explosion as mirror or irrelevant, I said it was a secondary affect not the primary affect witch is what the spell said it was. The primary affect is the object struck takes 2d4X100 secondary effect every thing in 10' takes damage from a contained matter-antimatter explosion for 4d6X10. (I think you are forgetting that game physics and magic does not always match how things work by real physics and over looked the word contained in the description.)

So let's see here, you think a sphere of anti-matter could exist in the positive matter world without a barrier (say a FORCE FIELD) separating it from the material that it will instantly annihilate and convert into pure destructive energy? It's basically an anti-matter grenade, why would you even remotely think it would just harmlessly vanish?

Also no I haven't overlooked anything, you've got the point blank range explosion damage and the lesser damage that occurs at range but all the damage being dealt is from the explosive conversion of matter to energy when the matter and anti-matter interact.

Force field is tech, this is magic plays by different set of rules.
The damage formula does not match how explosive damage is done in rifts. Primary target takes full damage every thing in blast radius takes half that. So the rules are not treating this as an straight up explosion.
The magical force containing the anti-mater remains in affect until it strikes something by text. Even after the it strikes the secondary explosion is still contained. So without text saying that if it hits nothing it explodes at max range that is not RAW, but a GM call. Without text saying it does not dissipate or is negated by the containing force collapsing in on it when it hits max range or that it is a GM call. This is combat spell with dimensional properties so it can be argued that the affect is the same as when any magic bolt reaches it max range as well.

In other words if it does not hit anything weather it dispates or explodes is a GMs call not RAW and for for either side to claim the others side logic in falis is in self wrong. Argumetns can be made either way and as we are dealing with magic and magic uses Metaphysics means it often operates outside of normal physics.

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics. It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion, and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

[Blue_Lion]

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics. It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion, and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

Please quote a magic force field in rifts. With page number.

But it it is magic means that it is not limited normal by physics. At this point it almost seams you are trolling. Your stance one side of a what can be seen as very big debate (the magic can not do something unless the text says it does is a big debate that has appeared in many forms) and is no more right by RAW than it fizzels. The spell says it only releases the blast on impact so if it hits nothing by the text it does not explode, weather it explodes or fizzels that is a GM call not RAW. You are placing limitation the spell the text does not.(If it did explode mid air that would be worth mentioning to me.)
(As both me and some one else has pointed out the distance is the max distance it can be thrown at and is likely the point it hits the ground not the point where the spell stops working.)

Unless you have something from the books that says it explodes at max range without hitting something I will no longer reply.

[eliakon]

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics.

Um, that is the exact definition of 'its magic' actually....

It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion,

An explosion that is already magically contained and moderated by the magic. So already the spell is in effect from the moment of casting right up until after the explosion....
Because it explicitly says that the explosion is contained, and then goes on to explain the results of the explosion. A result that is in defiance of physics. Specifically the explosion does NOT do half damage to everything in a blast radius. Also, unlike a normal anti-matter explosion of this size it has both a smaller blast radius, and a reduced damage for that blast radius. So we can already see that the effect is not simply a pure un-moderated explosion

and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains

No, you can assume that. I have yet to find anything in any book that suggests that any spell that summons attack objects has the object remain after casting. Can you cite such a source? Also can you explain what happens to the 'excess' blast with out also having such deal with the entire spell?

and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

Yes, if you change the RAW to make the spell do something that it doesn't say it does, then it will do something it didn't do before.
Since the spell already doesn't say that it explodes at the end of the duration, adding such is a change. Since RAW the only way to get the blast is to throw the orb at a target.
And yes, the spell does shield the anti-matter for the entire duration of that anti-matter's stay in our world. It shields it so much that it even stops most of the blast, and quite obviously by RAW sends any unused portions back.

[Nightmask]

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics. It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion, and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

Please quote a magic force field in rifts. With page number.

But it it is magic means that it is not limited normal by physics. At this point it almost seams you are trolling. Your stance one side of a what can be seen as very big debate (the magic can not do something unless the text says it does is a big debate that has appeared in many forms) and is no more right by RAW than it fizzels. The spell says it only releases the blast on impact so if it hits nothing by the text it does not explode, weather it explodes or fizzels that is a GM call not RAW. You are placing limitation the spell the text does not.(If it did explode mid air that would be worth mentioning to me.)
(As both me and some one else has pointed out the distance is the max distance it can be thrown at and is likely the point it hits the ground not the point where the spell stops working.)

Unless you have something from the books that says it explodes at max range without hitting something I will no longer reply.

What do you think a Wall of Force is, or Armor of Ithan, but magical force fields? For that matter what makes you think anti-matter isn't going to explode when it hits the ground? Because you might have missed this small detail but the ground is an object and if the anti-matter's hitting an object then duh it's going to explode. So unless YOU have proof in the book that it doesn't explode then YOU are in the wrong.

[Nightmask]

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics.

Um, that is the exact definition of 'its magic' actually....

No that's not the definition of magic.

It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion,

An explosion that is already magically contained and moderated by the magic. So already the spell is in effect from the moment of casting right up until after the explosion....
Because it explicitly says that the explosion is contained, and then goes on to explain the results of the explosion. A result that is in defiance of physics. Specifically the explosion does NOT do half damage to everything in a blast radius. Also, unlike a normal anti-matter explosion of this size it has both a smaller blast radius, and a reduced damage for that blast radius. So we can already see that the effect is not simply a pure un-moderated explosion

That doesn't change the fact that the driving force of the explosion is the matter/anti-matter reaction, it may be moderating it but it's not making it no longer a matter-antimatter reaction, and if you're going to respond to my posts don't be cutting them up and making them out to look like they say things that they don't, respond to the entire post with everything in its actual context.

and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains

No, you can assume that. I have yet to find anything in any book that suggests that any spell that summons attack objects has the object remain after casting. Can you cite such a source? Also can you explain what happens to the 'excess' blast with out also having such deal with the entire spell?

It's anti-matter, it's expected to be destroyed when being summoned, so of COURSE it's not going to be set up to send it back if you missed your target because it's summoned for the sole purpose of annihilating itself and its target. Seriously, why would you have a 'return object' feature in a spell for an object that's not intended to exist because it destroyed itself? That's completely illogical.

and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

Yes, if you change the RAW to make the spell do something that it doesn't say it does, then it will do something it didn't do before.
Since the spell already doesn't say that it explodes at the end of the duration, adding such is a change. Since RAW the only way to get the blast is to throw the orb at a target.
And yes, the spell does shield the anti-matter for the entire duration of that anti-matter's stay in our world. It shields it so much that it even stops most of the blast, and quite obviously by RAW sends any unused portions back.

Yeah, sorry, but no just because you WANT it to say that doesn't mean it DOES say that and it's quite obvious that the spell is not written to directly state or imply that the spell sends back any of the anti-matter that's summoned that's what you want to read into it just like you want to read into the spell that it is harmless if you miss the target which is most definitely NOT even remotely implied by the spell.

[eliakon]

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics.

Um, that is the exact definition of 'its magic' actually....

No that's not the definition of magic.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the definition of magic?
Because as I see it the definition of magic in Palladium is 'PPE powered systems that are not science."

It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion,

An explosion that is already magically contained and moderated by the magic. So already the spell is in effect from the moment of casting right up until after the explosion....
Because it explicitly says that the explosion is contained, and then goes on to explain the results of the explosion. A result that is in defiance of physics. Specifically the explosion does NOT do half damage to everything in a blast radius. Also, unlike a normal anti-matter explosion of this size it has both a smaller blast radius, and a reduced damage for that blast radius. So we can already see that the effect is not simply a pure un-moderated explosion

That doesn't change the fact that the driving force of the explosion is the matter/anti-matter reaction, it may be moderating it but it's not making it no longer a matter-antimatter reaction, and if you're going to respond to my posts don't be cutting them up and making them out to look like they say things that they don't, respond to the entire post with everything in its actual context.

1) This sentence was a separate portion than the one before (physics/magic) and the one after (that it is sent back) So I am not 'making them out to say things they don't. You said what I quoted.
2) With out responding to each separate portion of a long post separately it is impossible to coherently respond
3) There is nothing in the terms of service that says I should not
4) I notice that you have no problem cutting up other peoples posts, or replying to separate posts.

The problem is that it being an anti-matter explosion is not an issue.
What IS an issue is if that is 'purely the driving force of the explosion'
And if it is, if that is relevant to the claim that the anti-matter must stay around long enough to be thrown farther than the spells actual range.

and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains

No, you can assume that. I have yet to find anything in any book that suggests that any spell that summons attack objects has the object remain after casting. Can you cite such a source? Also can you explain what happens to the 'excess' blast with out also having such deal with the entire spell?

It's anti-matter, it's expected to be destroyed when being summoned, so of COURSE it's not going to be set up to send it back if you missed your target because it's summoned for the sole purpose of annihilating itself and its target. Seriously, why would you have a 'return object' feature in a spell for an object that's not intended to exist because it destroyed itself? That's completely illogical.

That isn't a source. It is a personal conjecture.
But I'll bite. I cast this spell. Between starting the casting and finishing my target moves/is destroyed. I decide that I do not want to blow up any other targets. I would rather not want to have the spell blow me up if I don't select a target with in the few seconds that the RAW give me to pick a new target....
But like I said, simply saying "well obviously I am right, because I am right" isn't a source.

and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

Yes, if you change the RAW to make the spell do something that it doesn't say it does, then it will do something it didn't do before.
Since the spell already doesn't say that it explodes at the end of the duration, adding such is a change. Since RAW the only way to get the blast is to throw the orb at a target.
And yes, the spell does shield the anti-matter for the entire duration of that anti-matter's stay in our world. It shields it so much that it even stops most of the blast, and quite obviously by RAW sends any unused portions back.

Yeah, sorry, but no just because you WANT it to say that doesn't mean it DOES say that and it's quite obvious that the spell is not written to directly state or imply that the spell sends back any of the anti-matter that's summoned that's what you want to read into it just like you want to read into the spell that it is harmless if you miss the target which is most definitely NOT even remotely implied by the spell.

Nuh-Uh isn't generally considered a valid rebuttal.
Do you have something to counter the actual argument? Or just a 'well I don't like this argument, so I will ignore it and hope it goes away?"
Since yes, as the spell is written it sends the anti-matter back. The evidence for this is that if you hit your target the target is destroyed. it does not say that you will destroy something else if you miss....there for RAW on a miss/dodge the anti-matter goes back
RAW if you fail to throw the anti-matter it does not blow you up. ergo RAW that is sending it back
I do not see any reason at all to suppose that it will send it back in those instances....but not in one where someone wishes to try and change the spell so as to get it to do something that is NOT written (have a range longer than the listed range, have an explosion bigger than the listed explosion, or any other use other than 'do exactly what is written'
Do you have a citation that the spell does, indeed allow you to do what ever you like with it regardless of what is actually written?

[Alrik Vas]

Anything the spell strikes will set it off. If you have an environment where there are no objects within range (including the ground, as in your environment is a void) then I could see it vanishing without fulfilling purpose.

Yet in a real environment it will strike something, even if it's just the ground, and explode. I can't see the situation coming up in a real game though.

[eliakon]

Anything the spell strikes will set it off. If you have an environment where there are no objects within range (including the ground, as in your environment is a void) then I could see it vanishing without fulfilling purpose.

Yet in a real environment it will strike something, even if it's just the ground, and explode. I can't see the situation coming up in a real game though.

Which is a neat house rule...
...but it is not what the actual RAW say.

The RAW says that the target (and only the target) can be hit and damaged. It doesn't say that anything else can be hit, nor does it say that there is any other way to set off the anti-mater except by having it hit what it was aimed at. It is not impact detonated in RAW, since that is not the actual RAW, any rule that it is would be a house rule.

[Alrik Vas]

Yep house rule, and as usual far superior to anything a robot who tries to translate the rules as written literally.

Must be tough living the RPG like that.

Warning: Insulting tone. Mack

[Blue_Lion]

No, force fields aren't exclusively tech you have magical ones as well, and no just because 'it's magic!' doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to be working within physics. It's drawing in anti-matter and that purely physical interaction with matter is the driving force of the explosion, and without explicit text that it says it sends the anti-matter back one must assume it remains and if it remains then it must end up doing what anti-matter does when it impacts matter since the magic doesn't shield the anti-matter from matter indefinitely.

Please quote a magic force field in rifts. With page number.

But it it is magic means that it is not limited normal by physics. At this point it almost seams you are trolling. Your stance one side of a what can be seen as very big debate (the magic can not do something unless the text says it does is a big debate that has appeared in many forms) and is no more right by RAW than it fizzels. The spell says it only releases the blast on impact so if it hits nothing by the text it does not explode, weather it explodes or fizzels that is a GM call not RAW. You are placing limitation the spell the text does not.(If it did explode mid air that would be worth mentioning to me.)
(As both me and some one else has pointed out the distance is the max distance it can be thrown at and is likely the point it hits the ground not the point where the spell stops working.)

Unless you have something from the books that says it explodes at max range without hitting something I will no longer reply.

What do you think a Wall of Force is, or Armor of Ithan, but magical force fields? For that matter what makes you think anti-matter isn't going to explode when it hits the ground? Because you might have missed this small detail but the ground is an object and if the anti-matter's hitting an object then duh it's going to explode. So unless YOU have proof in the book that it doesn't explode then YOU are in the wrong.

Magical barrier and armor.
I do not think it will not explode when it hits the ground I even point that as the most likely outcome (in the very post you are quoting) but you are claiming that it will explode at max range if it does not hit something. You have been claiming that it explodes at max range without hitting anything.

Note I rule it impact triggered based of the text on pg 150 of Book of magic.
"First the target (whatever it hits) takes..."

[Axelmania]

it will hit something...ether what it was aimed at or an collateral target. even if it is just the ground somewhere.

Or just explode in mid-air since air is also made of matter.

Now outer space on the other hand... Annihilate could in theory leave clumps of anti-matter as floating mines in space at least until some speck of dust flying through space happened to graze it.

What's interesting about whatever magical forces are containing the anti-matter is in a standard on-Earth use, it's going to be making contact with matter from the getgo. Whether it's the mage's hand/glove or the air it's being flung through, it resists interacting with matter until hitting a desired target at which point the anti-matter is no longer contained and interacts with it.

It seems like it's the mage's intent, their choice of target, which makes the anti-matter forcefield (or whatever you want to call it) lower...

Which makes me wonder: what happens if someone block-sacrifices to protect your target? Should the orb explode on them? They were not the intended target so why should the field lower any more than the air "block sacriificing" ?

Unless the forcefield lowers as some kind of timer trigger, like when you throw, you know it will take X milliseconds to reach your target so the orb is set to explode after that set amount of time after you throw it?

Otherwise, since the spell does not explicitly send the anti-matter back, yet also does not explicitly explode unless it hits a desired target, every missed Annihilation would result in safely contained anti-matter bobbing around in mid-air for centuries.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Air is something..... So saying it hits & reacts with the matter in the air is not being contrary to what I said.

While the spell "activates" at the end run of the "throw" that has missed. It would not explode like say a stick of dynamite, block of C4 or a bag of ANFO. So the word explode is not the right word for describing how this spell acts.

"Activate" being it would run through the cycle of what happens if it hit its intended target.

What happens in space is speculation & I am not going to comment on that speculation.

The magic around the AM does seam to become semi-permeable once it leaves the casting mage's hand. However, the magic stays in place until the AM-M reaction takes place as far as the text of the spell is concerned.

Yes, while there is an energetic reaction that takes place within the magic, it does not explode. Everything energetic is contained within the magic.

[Axelmania]

If some term other than explode is used then we can use that, explode is more of a casual term to represent it doing area effect damage not a technical physics label.

The thing to answer is what causes the anti matter to release: hitting the intended target, being out of the hand a number of seconds, moving out of range?

[eliakon]

If some term other than explode is used then we can use that, explode is more of a casual term to represent it doing area effect damage not a technical physics label.

The thing to answer is what causes the anti matter to release: hitting the intended target, being out of the hand a number of seconds, moving out of range?

RAW it appears to be hitting the intended target.

[Axelmania]

Block-sacrifice? More like bounce-noncrifice.

[The Beast]

Please quote a magic force field in rifts. With page number.

Cosmic Force Field, DB13, page 123 .