Now you're just trying to find holes in an intentionally vague description of a force field. The field doesn't have to be completely indestructible, but for the intent of containing ranged weaponry it is completely plausible to have it act as such. No amount of your "what-ifs" can trump the setting designers, as they are essentially gods. For example, if you say you'll cut the power source, the designer will put another force field around the core generator! Huzah. If you say you'll disrupt the field, you are imposing your idea of what a "disruptable" field may be on the setting designer, who is perfectly free to reject your idea.
You are also stepping further and further from your original dubious claim. With each "what-if" you're undermining your argument that ranged weapons on space stations and space ships are bad ideas. "Well they're a bad idea if the players can disrupt the force fields surrounding the station", "Well they're a bad idea if the players can turn off the power to the fields". These don't sound like problems that are impossible to solve. I bet any Star Trek Geek could do it without batting an eyelash.
My point exactly.
And not a one of us has used that explanation.
|