Forums of the Megaverse®

Hi. I've always assumed that cold was an energy. I joined a game and their thinking is that cold is 'anti' energy and is the opposite of energy.

So my question is this: Does the spell impervious to energy, the super ability energy absorption, and abilities like the Cosmo Knights resistance to energy and the Mystic Knights impervious to energy protect you from cold? (or any other power/ability that just lists energy as a generic category)

None of them list that it does or doesn't. The Cosmo Knights and the Mystic Knights abilities go to great length to say what does full, half or no damage to them but cold isn't listed.

elecgraystone wrote:So my question is this: Does the spell impervious to energy, the super ability energy absorption, and abilities like the Cosmo Knights resistance to energy and the Mystic Knights impervious to energy protect you from cold? (or any other power/ability that just lists energy as a generic category)

No.

So cosmo knights take exposure effects every melee round in space since they have no resistance to cold? (galaxy guide pg#214)

elecgraystone wrote:So cosmo knights take exposure effects every melee round in space since they have no resistance to cold? (galaxy guide pg#214)

lol

I guess so.
I don't have GG, and I loaned Phase World out to a friend, so I can't look up the rule you're citing, and I can't look up Cosmo Knights to check their capabilities.

Heat is an energy.

"Cold" is simply a term we use to describe a lack of heat.

Therefore, Impervious to Energy, Energy Absortion, et al, provide no protection from cold.

Cosmo-Kniights take no damage from cold because their cosmic armour may be considered "enviromental" if not far superior.

Ok. But I've found 5 places were cold is refered to energy and no places that it is stated that it isn't energy. Are all of them wrong?

Energy expulsion: cold (once in the name, and again in text "can also divide the energy to fire two simultaneous blasts")
[powers unlimited pg#21]

Energy expusion: icy mist (in name)
[powers unlimited pg#23]

Flight:energy (this energy trail may be made of fire, cold, energy, plasme, radiation, ect)
[powers unlimited pg#27]

Alter physical structure:void, void bolt ability (a short blast of intensely cold energy)
[galaxy guide pg#220]

Control elemental force:void, bolt of cold ability (a blast of black energy that is so cold it burns)

elecgraystone wrote:Ok. But I've found 5 places were cold is refered to energy and no places that it is stated that it isn't energy. Are all of them wrong?

Energy expulsion: cold (once in the name, and again in text "can also divide the energy to fire two simultaneous blasts")
[powers unlimited pg#21]

Energy expusion: icy mist (in name)
[powers unlimited pg#23]

Flight:energy (this energy trail may be made of fire, cold, energy, plasme, radiation, ect)
[powers unlimited pg#27]

PU is ****ed up in a lot of ways.
They were just trying to stick to the themes of "energy expulsion" and such, because it was easier than making a power called: "Heat-sucking field expulsion: Cold."

Alter physical structure:void, void bolt ability (a short blast of intensely cold energy)
[galaxy guide pg#220]
Control elemental force:void, bolt of cold ability (a blast of black energy that is so cold it burns)

"Cold Energy" /= "Cold is a form of Energy."

Just like "Happy Puppy" /= "Puppies are a form of Happiness."

That's nice and all, but as I've shown at least 5 times cold is refered to an an energy and in two different books. It would be nice is there was a little consistency. The fact is that the last two abilities are bolts of energy that do cold damage. Playing word games doesn't change what they wrote.

It seems odd to me that cosmo knight would have such a glaring weakness and it wasn't pointed out that cold does full damage. With gun brothers and invincible guardsman able to take super abilities and APS, it would seem that they would have some focused on such a weakness. They can fly into a sun but a snowball hurts them?

It also makes the cold attack powers MUCH more powerful since it bypasses the normal energy resistance powers AND the physical resistance powers, leaving only the few powers that just say cold resistance.

elecgraystone wrote:That's nice and all, but as I've shown at least 5 times cold is refered to an an energy and in two different books.

As I've already pointed out, no, you have not.
You have shown two instances in which "Cold" is tossed in with energy types out of apparent laziness, and you've shown three instances where something is described as being cold.

It would be nice is there was a little consistency. The fact is that the last two abilities are bolts of energy that do cold damage. Playing word games doesn't change what they wrote.

Agreed.
And "energy that does cold damage" is NOT the same as "Cold is a form of energy."
Just like saying, "Bullet that does kinetic damage" is not the same as "Kinetic damage is a kind of bullet."

These aren't word games; it's how the English language works.
If you don't want to pay any attention to the meaning of what the books say, or to basic logic, then have fun talking to yourself for the rest of this thread.

It seems odd to me that cosmo knight would have such a glaring weakness and it wasn't pointed out that cold does full damage.

If you read the books, there's lots of odd stuff in there.

With gun brothers and invincible guardsman able to take super abilities and APS, it would seem that they would have some focused on such a weakness. They can fly into a sun but a snowball hurts them?

Since (IIRC) they're naturally MDC creatures, it would take one HELL of a big snowball to do them any actual damage.

It also makes the cold attack powers MUCH more powerful since it bypasses the normal energy resistance powers AND the physical resistance powers, leaving only the few powers that just say cold resistance.

Yes.

Since they are just energy that happens to be cold and not cold energy, would the impervious to energy work on them? They ARE energy right?

I guess what bothers me the most is that Palladium has basically put things in two categories. Energy and physical. Then these are subdivided into normal, magical and psionic. Looking at the abilities I asked about in my first post and you see that's how they are explained. Energy does this much, physical does this much, magic and psionic does this.

No where is cold ever mentioned, even in the powers that break down exactly what in each category. It just seems weird that cold is it's own category. Energy, physical and cold?

oh, and by the conversion book one, an APS character does 1/2 sdc damage as MDC. So a cosmo knight takes damage from an ice ball. (my mistake, snowballs only do 1 damage, so I'll not include them.)

elecgraystone wrote:Since they are just energy that happens to be cold and not cold energy, would the impervious to energy work on them? They ARE energy right?

THAT is a good question.
I suppose that it would be up to the GM to decide how specifically the power works.

I guess what bothers me the most is that Palladium has basically put things in two categories. Energy and physical. Then these are subdivided into normal, magical and psionic. Looking at the abilities I asked about in my first post and you see that's how they are explained. Energy does this much, physical does this much, magic and psionic does this.

No where is cold ever mentioned, even in the powers that break down exactly what in each category. It just seems weird that cold is it's own category. Energy, physical and cold?

Yup.
There might be something else out there as well.
Also, there's other weird stuff:
Particle beams, for example are energy.
Invulnerable characters are impervious to energy.
Yet Invulnerable characters take partial damage from particle beams.
Go fig.

Does this mean that other characters that are impervious to energy weapons also take partial damage from particle beams?
Nobody knows.

And then there's psi-swords, which are both energy and physical, depending on circumstance.
And don't get me started on Mind Bolt...

You really want to hurt your brain, try and figure out why radiation isn't an energy for resist energy!

If cold really is it's own category, it made Energy expulsion: cold super powerful and a definite pick next time I make up a character with super abilities. Only a dozen or so abilities to resist it and there are almost that many that are vulnerable to it. WAY better than fire except it has no strike bonuses (which seem to have been forgotten on all PU EE).

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Yup.
There might be something else out there as well.
Also, there's other weird stuff:
Particle beams, for example are energy.
Invulnerable characters are impervious to energy.
Yet Invulnerable characters take partial damage from particle beams.
Go fig.

Does this mean that other characters that are impervious to energy weapons also take partial damage from particle beams?
Nobody knows.

And then there's psi-swords, which are both energy and physical, depending on circumstance.
And don't get me started on Mind Bolt...

I just did a reading of the invulnerability power (hu2 & RCB1r) and no where did I find the P-Beam 1/2 damage you mention. Where are you pulling this from?

The only place I can find where the 1/2 damage ruling would be applicable would be against the invulnerability spell RBoM), which the only protection from physical attacks is a 50 mdc field. Since P-beams and Ion Beams are partially physical based attacks I can see the logic behind the invulnerability spell taking 1/2 damage from them.

elecgraystone wrote:You really want to hurt your brain, try and figure out why radiation isn't an energy for resist energy!

because most of the dangerous radiations are really particles traveling at near c speeds.

drewkitty wrote:because most of the dangerous radiations are really particles traveling at near c speeds.

You mean like light (electromagnetic radiation) that IS covered?

Just to be clear electromagnetic radiation covers radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. Notice that visible light and normal laser frequency fall into the middle of this (infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation)

So why again isn't radiation covered?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Yup.
There might be something else out there as well.
Also, there's other weird stuff:
Particle beams, for example are energy.
Invulnerable characters are impervious to energy.
Yet Invulnerable characters take partial damage from particle beams.
Go fig.

Does this mean that other characters that are impervious to energy weapons also take partial damage from particle beams?
Nobody knows.

And then there's psi-swords, which are both energy and physical, depending on circumstance.
And don't get me started on Mind Bolt...

I just did a reading of the invulnerability power (hu2 & RCB1r) and no where did I find the P-Beam 1/2 damage you mention. Where are you pulling this from?

AU, IIRC.

The only place I can find where the 1/2 damage ruling would be applicable would be against the invulnerability spell RBoM), which the only protection from physical attacks is a 50 mdc field.

And invulnerability to energy attacks.

Since P-beams and Ion Beams are partially physical based attacks I can see the logic behind the invulnerability spell taking 1/2 damage from them.

AFAIK, they never apply it to ion beams.

elecgraystone wrote:You really want to hurt your brain, try and figure out why radiation isn't an energy for resist energy!

because most of the dangerous radiations are really particles traveling at near c speeds.

Is that faster than light?

I always took the radiation power as more along the lines of alpha and beta particles, with some gamma and x-ray EM thrown in.

I have always gone with cold being grouped with energy expulsions for simplicity, the same way people come up with things like "black lasers". In my game a character who was immune, or resistance to cold would be resistance to cold attacks, but the impervious to energy guy wouldn't. Just my 2 cents.

By the way KC, channeling Von Doom are we?

Killer Cyborg wrote:1) AU, IIRC.

The only place I can find where the 1/2 damage ruling would be applicable would be against the invulnerability spell RBoM), which the only protection from physical attacks is a 50 mdc field.

2) And invulnerability to energy attacks.

Since P-beams and Ion Beams are partially physical based attacks I can see the logic behind the invulnerability spell taking 1/2 damage from them.

3)AFAIK, they never apply it to ion beams.

elecgraystone wrote:You really want to hurt your brain, try and figure out why radiation isn't an energy for resist energy!

because most of the dangerous radiations are really particles traveling at near c speeds.

4)Is that faster than light?

1) Doesn't the 'HU 2nd ed' supersede the 'AU 1st revised ed'? If we were playing HU1r, yah I would agree with you. But in HU2 nope.

2) If you look at want I said, I was talking about the physical attacks, in reference to the 1/2 damage I was responding to. Yes, the invulnerability spell does make the recipient is made invulnerable to energy attacks.

3) WT* does AFAIK mean? I was showing the similarity of the two beams, that they both have a physical component as well as energy.

4) Near c is between 80% and up to the C limit.

While Gamma radiation is harmful, it the alpha and beta radiation that the gamma spawns, that actually do the damage. Alpha radiation are composed of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particles[/url], while beta radiation is composed of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle[/url]. Since the Radiation the book is talking about is the particulate type you can't include EM radiation. They are two different monsters, with the EM rad being covered by the term 'light' in the hu books.

RockJock wrote:I have always gone with cold being grouped with energy expulsions for simplicity, the same way people come up with things like "black lasers". In my game a character who was immune, or resistance to cold would be resistance to cold attacks, but the impervious to energy guy wouldn't. Just my 2 cents.

By the way KC, channeling Von Doom are we?

That sounds about right RJ.

He is probably channeling Dr. DOOM III the last resident "know it all & has to answer every question".

Please post a book and pg# were is breaks down what kinds of radiation's are under the radiation category? I know for a fact microwave weapons are in AU, so it kind of wrecks your theory that it's only alpha and beta radiation does damage

(from wiki)"Radiation, as used in physics, is energy in the form of waves or moving subatomic particles" Now I fail to see were Palladium breaks it down to ionizing or non-ionizing radiation or alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

(from wiki)Nuclear damage; Gamma burns from highly penetrating radiation. This would likely cause deep gamma penetration within the body, which would result in uniform whole body irradiation rather than only a surface burn. In cases of whole body gamma irradiation (circa 10 Gy) due to accidents involving medical product irradiators, some of the human subjects have developed injuries to their skin between the time of irradiation and death. sounds like radiation damage to me.

(from wiki, paraphrased)As far as radiation sickness goes beta particles, x-rays, and gamma rays are equally as dangerous. Only alpha particles rate more dangerous, about 20 times. Note that X-ray (or Röntgen ray) is a form of electromagnetic radiation, and causes radiation sickness.

PB doesn't break it down, that is why thinks like Cold get put in EE. Look at the sound powers that tend to get grouped with EE. HU is hardly built to be a scientific work. A flashlight emits radiation, as does a piece of granite. As an example a light beam meant top hurt a vampire would in my opinion be a mix of UV and visible light, and would be radiation, but would not cause radiation sickness. I don't know anywhere that PB really gets into delving into, or meddling with the Unified Theory, they usually don't even get into endo vs exothermic, which is how I tend to view cold weapons. Cold pulls heat from your body, not puts cold into it. Oh, and just FYI, a sunburn is radiation poisoning from a different source. You need to remember it is a game. If you don't have a problem with a guy who can pull mass from some other place to gain mass and weight, then what is considered EE or not shouldn't be a huge issue.

I have no books currently available, so you aren't going to get page numbers.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:[color=#0000BF]1) Doesn't the 'HU 2nd ed' supersede the 'AU 1st revised ed'?

Only if they conflict.

3) WT* does AFAIK mean?

"As Far As I Know"

I was showing the similarity of the two beams, that they both have a physical component as well as energy.

And I was pointing out that this doesn't seem to be the reason for p-beams inflicting damage to invulnerable characters.

[color=#800000]4) Near c is between 80% and up to the C limit.

I don't really know what that means, and if you don't care to explain in plain English, I don't really care.

c is the speed of light

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Only if they conflict.

Well there is a conflict, HU2 does not state that P-beams do 1/2 damage.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Only if they conflict.

Well there is a conflict, HU2 does not state that P-beams do 1/2 damage.

That's not a conflict, that's just lack of support.
HU1 never stated it either.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:c is the speed of light

I c.

So why would the speed of radiation mean that it's not energy?
Lasers are particles traveling exactly "c," and they're energy.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Only if they conflict.

Well there is a conflict, HU2 does not state that P-beams do 1/2 damage.

That's not a conflict, that's just lack of support.
HU1 never stated it either.

To put this to rest, the rule can also be found on page 216 of the HUGMG, in the section about particle beam weapons.

As I remember the change in P-Beams is a PB rules change. I can't check rules, but maybe RUE, or Chaos Earth had the nicking P-Beam?

RockJock wrote:As I remember the change in P-Beams is a PB rules change. I can't check rules, but maybe RUE, or Chaos Earth had the nicking P-Beam?

BtS had rules for P-beams nicking people.

BtS2 I'm guessing, since I never read the first? I was thinking something else, maybe even System Failure, I just can't put my finger on it, but thanks KC.

RockJock wrote:BtS2 I'm guessing, since I never read the first? I was thinking something else, maybe even System Failure, I just can't put my finger on it, but thanks KC.

I don't remember if it's that way in BtS II, but it was that way in the original.
Possibly even in HU1.

IIRC, maybe even Mechanoids (can't check right now).

No need to check KC. I can't get to any books either, so I'm no help, just curious.

The rule about particle beams inflicting different amounts of damage according to their strike roll does indeed go back to the Mechanoids trilogy, and appears in several of the S.D.C. game settings, including BTS, Nightbane, and HU. In Systems Failure the rule is applied to Organitech energy weapons.

My 2 cents worth: cold is not a form of energy, it is an abscence of energy. As such, it can not be projected. What is projected in Energy Attack: Cold is some kind of energy field that either absorbs or neutralizes heat. Because the field is energy, it can be resisted by effects that resist energy. Icy mist, being a physical substance with a low temperature, would NOT be resisted by energy resistance. Neither would cold damage from snoe or ice based attacks, though most of the damage from such attacks tends to be physical.

In answer to the question about cosmo knights, cold is rarely capable of inflicting mega damage, and the cosmo knight is perfectly capable of countering those few cold attacks that do so with his own energy.

MDC creatures still take exposure effects every round in space, leaving them helpless in no time. So no damage, just stats reduced to 0.

That is space damage, not purely cold damage. You have decompression and all sorts of fun stuff in there.

Not all MDC beings are space worthy. I would only go as far to say that while they might be able to survive short jaunts into space like zentradiee, they can't stay there indefinitely. Otherwise they suffer from decompression just like squishes do.

RockJock wrote:That is space damage, not purely cold damage. You have decompression and all sorts of fun stuff in there.

In the galaxy guide it breaks down the effects of space. There is a section on suffocation/decompression, cold and radiation. I was only talking about the cold section. In it all creatures NOT resistant to cold take cumulative exposure penalties every melee round. After 4 the character has NO movement and has started taking some big minuses to PS and PP.

Elecgraystone, I agree with the damage you are talking about for the most part. It is hard to use a HU book for MDC, and take everything as a 100% carry over. I don't have any books available, but I'm sure there is space exposure rules somewhere in an MDC setting, maybe MiO, or a PW book? Either way I agree that many, if not most MDC creatures will take cold damage in space, but that has nothing to do with cold being a form of energy. Cold is still the lack of heat, or the pull of heat out of an object and into the environ. I just think you are getting to wrapped up in the devil in the details. If your group, or GM decided that cold, or resistance to cold has something to do with impervious, or resistance to energy then great, I can come up with something to make that work. If you decide that energy, and cold have nothing to do with each other (which is my view) then great. Just stay consistent in your group and make sure everyone understands what is what.

Killer Cyborg: Stop and look at it from this prespective:

Impervious to Energy prevents damage based on altered energy states. Electricity, heat, whatever.

Cold is damage from an altered energy state, in this case, the lack of a certain kind.

But sinse it's impervious to "All damage from attempting to change subjects natural energgy states", then it also blocks cold and heat...not because cold is a kind of energy, but because impervious to energy can also be thought of as protecting the users natural energy states from change, thus, you won't melt, but you also won't freeze.

This makes sense given the books AND is clearly in line with the authors _intentions_ of such powers.

Physics: Cold is not energy. It is the lack of energy.

Palladium: The delivery device and classification may be a form of energy. As such, "Impervious to Energy" and other spells/defenses should work.

Rockjock, the only space damage rules I know of are in HU. If there were MDC rules, I'd be using them. If there IS some floating around, someone point them out and I'll use them.

And I wasn't saying that cold is a form of energy when I was pointing this out. I was saying that it looked like the people that made the Cosmo Knight thought it counted as one since it's is REALLY silly for a space knight to get cold in space. Now I like Braden Campbell, but nothing before this has even hinted that their armor is environmental or even if it was that the cosmo knight needed to wear it in space.

Honestly why make in that way when they don't need 90% of the environmental protection? It's not like they need the protection from radiation, heat and lack of air. It makes more sense that they are immune to cold also, either because it's counted as an energy and they are resistant to them, or they somehow forgot to add impervious to cold to the list of powers.

Nekira Sudacne, thank you. You said it better than I was able too.

GhostKnight, thank you too. I was never trying to say that in real life it was an energy, just that it seemed like it was counted as one in the game IMO.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Killer Cyborg: Stop and look at it from this prespective:

Impervious to Energy prevents damage based on altered energy states. Electricity, heat, whatever.

Cold is damage from an altered energy state, in this case, the lack of a certain kind.

But sinse it's impervious to "All damage from attempting to change subjects natural energgy states", then it also blocks cold and heat...not because cold is a kind of energy, but because impervious to energy can also be thought of as protecting the users natural energy states from change, thus, you won't melt, but you also won't freeze.

This makes sense given the books AND is clearly in line with the authors _intentions_ of such powers.

Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

No, Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat. Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous decreases in heat. Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous changes to your energy state.

elecgraystone wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

No, Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat. Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous decreases in heat. Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous changes to your energy state.

No, but you're getting warmer.
Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat.
Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous increases in cold (which is a negative change in heat).
Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous increases to your energy state.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

elecgraystone wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

No, Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat. Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous decreases in heat. Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous changes to your energy state.

No, but you're getting warmer.
Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat.
Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous increases in cold (which is a negative change in heat).
Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous increases to your energy state.

Why do you get it only applies to increases for impervious to energy?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

elecgraystone wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

No, Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat. Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous decreases in heat. Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous changes to your energy state.

No, but you're getting warmer.
Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat.
Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous increases in cold (which is a negative change in heat).
Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous increases to your energy state.

Why do you get it only applies to increases for impervious to energy?

Because that's the pattern of how the powers work.
Unless you think that Impervious to Heat protects you from changes in your overall temperature, there's no reason to believe that Impervious to Energy protects you from changes in your overall energy level.

Cold isn't heat, it's a lack of heat. So Impervious to Heat doesn't protect you from cold.
Cold isn't energy, it's a lack of energy. So Impervious to Energy doesn't protect you from cold.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

elecgraystone wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

No, Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat. Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous decreases in heat. Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous changes to your energy state.

No, but you're getting warmer.
Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat.
Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous increases in cold (which is a negative change in heat).
Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous increases to your energy state.

Why do you get it only applies to increases for impervious to energy?

Because that's the pattern of how the powers work.
Unless you think that Impervious to Heat protects you from changes in your overall temperature, there's no reason to believe that Impervious to Energy protects you from changes in your overall energy level.

Cold isn't heat, it's a lack of heat. So Impervious to Heat doesn't protect you from cold.
Cold isn't energy, it's a lack of energy. So Impervious to Energy doesn't protect you from cold.

Sadly, that's just a non sequiter. Impervious to energy isn't Impervious to Fire. One cannot be used to base the other on.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Sadly, that's just a non sequiter. Impervious to energy isn't Impervious to Fire. One cannot be used to base the other on.

lol

Yeah.
They're only similar powers in the same game.

On the other hand, you're basing your assumption of how the power works on.... nothing at all.
Unless you count wishful thinking.

Anything above absolute zero has heat energy.
Thermodynamics near absolute zero
At temperatures near 0 K, nearly all molecular motion ceases and ΔS = 0 for any adiabatic process. Pure substances can (ideally) form perfect crystals as T0. Max Planck's strong form of the third law of thermodynamics states the entropy of a perfect crystal vanishes at absolute zero. However, this cannot be true if the lowest energy state is degenerate, or more than one microstate. The original Nernst heat theorem makes the weaker and less controversial claim that the entropy change for any isothermal process approaches zero as T0

The implication is that the entropy of a perfect crystal simply approaches a constant value.

The Nernst postulate identifies the isotherm T = 0 as coincident with the adiabat S = 0, although other isotherms and adiabats are distinct. As no two adiabats intersect, no other adiabat can intersect the T = 0 isotherm. Consequently no adiabatic process initiated at nonzero temperature can lead to zero temperature. (≈ Callen, pp. 189-190)

An even stronger assertion is that It is impossible by any procedure to reduce the temperature of a system to zero in a finite number of operations. (≈ Guggenheim, p. 157)

Nemo235 wrote:Anything above absolute zero has heat energy.
Thermodynamics near absolute zero
At temperatures near 0 K, nearly all molecular motion ceases and ΔS = 0 for any adiabatic process. Pure substances can (ideally) form perfect crystals as T0. Max Planck's strong form of the third law of thermodynamics states the entropy of a perfect crystal vanishes at absolute zero. However, this cannot be true if the lowest energy state is degenerate, or more than one microstate. The original Nernst heat theorem makes the weaker and less controversial claim that the entropy change for any isothermal process approaches zero as T0

The implication is that the entropy of a perfect crystal simply approaches a constant value.

The Nernst postulate identifies the isotherm T = 0 as coincident with the adiabat S = 0, although other isotherms and adiabats are distinct. As no two adiabats intersect, no other adiabat can intersect the T = 0 isotherm. Consequently no adiabatic process initiated at nonzero temperature can lead to zero temperature. (≈ Callen, pp. 189-190)

An even stronger assertion is that It is impossible by any procedure to reduce the temperature of a system to zero in a finite number of operations. (≈ Guggenheim, p. 157)

My brain hurts

elecgraystone wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you also believe that being "Impervious to Fire/Heat" also protects you from cold, since a cold-based attack is attempting to change the level of heat in your body.

Personally, I don't buy it.

No, Impervious to Fire/Heat would protect from dangerous increases in heat. Impervious to cold would protect from dangerous decreases in heat. Protection from energy would protect you from any dangerous changes to your energy state.

Also, remember that Impervious to Fire/Heat has the additional bonus of protecting not only you, but your gear. Impervious to Energy, while having a wider scope, does not.