Auto-G Question

[Bill]

The text indicates that the Auto-G takes on the form of a creature that it consumes a sample from down to the genetic level. Can one take a sample from itself after transforming to use later?

[ShadowLogan]

????
I thought the Auto-G could transform back at will.

[Mack]

????
I thought the Auto-G could transform back at will.

I believe he means...
-- Auto-G transforms into X.
-- Auto-G takes a sample of his X-self.
-- Auto-G transforms into Y.
-- Auto-G uses his X-self sample to transform back into X.

I'm going to say no, this isn't possible. The sample needs to be from the source, not a copy.

[Bill]

I'm going to say no, this isn't possible. The sample needs to be from the source, not a copy.

Any reason other than it makes changing into the same creature at will too easy?

[Mack]

I'm going to say no, this isn't possible. The sample needs to be from the source, not a copy.

Any reason other than it makes changing into the same creature at will too easy?

That's a reason, but I'm basing it off the overall context of the ability description. The "Auto-G based sample" is a very, very good copy, but it's still a copy.

[Blue_Lion]

I'm going to say no, this isn't possible. The sample needs to be from the source, not a copy.

Any reason other than it makes changing into the same creature at will too easy?

Simple the sample is contaminated not a pure sample. While it mimics the DNA of the subject it copies its true DNA is that of the auto G.

[Axelmania]

Eh... so if an Auto-G changes into a wolfen, and then loses his hand, and I carry that wolfen hand 500 miles away on a motorcycle, and then the Auto-G changes into an Elf, the severed hand 500 miles away also changes into an elf hand instead of remaining wolfen?

[Mack]

Eh... so if an Auto-G changes into a wolfen, and then loses his hand, and I carry that wolfen hand 500 miles away on a motorcycle, and then the Auto-G changes into an Elf, the severed hand 500 miles away also changes into an elf hand instead of remaining wolfen?

The fake-Wolfen hand remains a fake-Wolfen hand.

[Bill]

I'm going to say no, this isn't possible. The sample needs to be from the source, not a copy.

Any reason other than it makes changing into the same creature at will too easy?

Simple the sample is contaminated not a pure sample. While it mimics the DNA of the subject it copies its true DNA is that of the auto G.

The Coalition test to detect Auto-Gs looks for two proteins rather than any tell-tale flaw in the code. I think, if I'm going to hand wave a reason, I'll cite the mystical component of the transformation. Because magic works better for me.

[Blue_Lion]

I'm going to say no, this isn't possible. The sample needs to be from the source, not a copy.

Any reason other than it makes changing into the same creature at will too easy?

Simple the sample is contaminated not a pure sample. While it mimics the DNA of the subject it copies its true DNA is that of the auto G.

The Coalition test to detect Auto-Gs looks for two proteins rather than any tell-tale flaw in the code. I think, if I'm going to hand wave a reason, I'll cite the mystical component of the transformation. Because magic works better for me.

What is easier checking for two proteins or analizing the whole DNA structure?
I would think it would be easier to create a simple field test for proteins. Like how csi can test to see if blood stain is human without running a DNA test.
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-di ... blood.aspx

So for testing, the test for a protein could simply be easier, faster and cheaper than DNA testing. Not requiring a sample be sent to a lab like a DNA test would.

[Bill]

In a world where they maintain the expertise to engineer mutant humanoids, have miniaturized nuclear reactors, and computerized translation on demand for virtually any spoken language, a pocket DNA analyzer is hardly a challenge. Let's not argue though. I'm going with it's magic!

[Blue_Lion]

In a world where they maintain the expertise to engineer mutant humanoids, have miniaturized nuclear reactors, and computerized translation on demand for virtually any spoken language, a pocket DNA analyzer is hardly a challenge. Let's not argue though. I'm going with it's magic!

It was more about providing a way that did not require just saying its magic.

[Curbludgeon]

In that the replication of a specific individual requires examination time of the targer in addition to a larger sample, an Auto-G would be unable to use themselves for this even if a table allows auto-cannibalized general replication. The much smaller sample requirement for general replication suggests that most Auto-G will keep some favorite vials hidden on their person. With modest preservation efforts such samples would be repeatedly usuable by the Auto-G throughout its life.

The main situations where an Auto-G's inability to self-replicate would come into play would be, then, where they have lost all of their possessions, and are having to scrounge around to find a hair follicle. I, as a rule, actively oppose setting elements which encourage Gygaxian dynamics, and that's such a tired contrivance in games I hold suspect GMs whom use it.

The test for the enzyme combination present in Auto-G is said to be simple and only takes a few minutes to perform, but is impracticlal for use either on the battlefield or in the 'Burbs. Whether that means it can be performed using a portable laboratory is left ambiguous. The autocatalytic capability of the enzymes known as ribosymes present an easy way for technobabble to explain an Auto-G quickly generating huge amount of DNA, so I'm going with that. A side effect of that is the test wouldn't be detecting proteins.

[eliakon]

it doesn't matter...
If the specimen has those two erroneous proteins, then its NOT really Wulfen DNA or whatever.
Ergo, while its close, its not quite right. And thus it isn't the same.
Those two detectable proteins are enough to make it not pure.

[Curbludgeon]

1. The source material mentions an enzyme combination by which the Auto-G can be detected, not proteins. Most enzymes are proteins, but there is value in the distinction.
2. DNA and other nucleic acids are not proteins. They are fundamentally different forms of macromolecule.
3. The source material mentions only the consumption of and interaction with DNA as part of a sample, with the end result having indistinguishable DNA from the species or individual, depending on time spent/amount consumed. The text in no way discusses any consequences of consuming the parts of the sample that are not extractable DNA. If a single hair follicle is utilized to replicate a species, any hair being eaten is incidental to that replication. It doesn't matter if the hair was processed, dipped in ketchup, or ends up stuck in the Auto-G's teeth. So, too, are these identifying enzymes incidental to the DNA being replicated. They are something automagically generated by the Auto-G.
4. There is nothing in the source material that speak to requirements of the sample, other than it must possess DNA. That general replication allows the Auto-G to assume the identity of a random member of a species suggests that things like transcription errors due to aging, mutations from UV exposure, and gene editing all wash out in the mix. Anyone that wants to make claims about sample purity is encouraged to find a quote supporting that in lieu of pretending their headcanon is something else.

The simple answer is that the matter is ambiguous, and either approach is fine. Allowing it only affects a couple of edge cases even if it appears abusable, while banning it out of hand is quick but power-trippy.

[eliakon]

1. The source material mentions an enzyme combination by which the Auto-G can be detected, not proteins. Most enzymes are proteins, but there is value in the distinction.
2. DNA and other nucleic acids are not proteins. They are fundamentally different forms of macromolecule.
3. The source material mentions only the consumption of and interaction with DNA as part of a sample, with the end result having indistinguishable DNA from the species or individual, depending on time spent/amount consumed. The text in no way discusses any consequences of consuming the parts of the sample that are not extractable DNA. If a single hair follicle is utilized to replicate a species, any hair being eaten is incidental to that replication. It doesn't matter if the hair was processed, dipped in ketchup, or ends up stuck in the Auto-G's teeth. So, too, are these identifying enzymes incidental to the DNA being replicated. They are something automagically generated by the Auto-G.
4. There is nothing in the source material that speak to requirements of the sample, other than it must possess DNA. That general replication allows the Auto-G to assume the identity of a random member of a species suggests that things like transcription errors due to aging, mutations from UV exposure, and gene editing all wash out in the mix. Anyone that wants to make claims about sample purity is encouraged to find a quote supporting that in lieu of pretending their headcanon is something else.

The simple answer is that the matter is ambiguous, and either approach is fine. Allowing it only affects a couple of edge cases even if it appears abusable, while banning it out of hand is quick but power-trippy.

What ever Enzyme, Protein, what ever.
It doesn't matter what semantic games you play.
But have it your way, there are two Enzymes then.
It doesn't matter WHAT they are. There are two chemicals in the body. They can be detected. These chemicals are created by some natural process that is unique to Auto-G biology. Thus, their biology is NOT identical to the replicated critter... as it is making these chemicals.

That tells us that the Auto-G can't sample itself... because its not the replicated critter, it is an auto-g imitating the critter.
Now, if your GM rules that Auto-Gs can pick as a valid replication "An Auto-G copying an Elf" or what have you, then your fine. But your not actually copying an elf, and as such your not taking a sample of an elf. I can say this because your "sample" is a sample of something that naturally creates Enzyme AG1 and AG2 (or what ever) and as such, I can 100% tell you that is is NOT a sample of an elf as elves dont have that in them.
And it is *NOT* created 'magically' as the Auto-G is not, to my knowledge, listed as a CoM... after all, if it was, it would be detectable as such

[Hawk258]

Considering it is 2 enzymes from what is "supposedly" unique to auto-g, it begs the question if those enzymes can be isolated and introduced to non-auto-g races for a false positive and if that prevents an auto-g from mimicking its race using that individuals DNA. Though enzymes are in the circulatory system and digestive system not hair or skin. Which is why blood and saliva are the primary tools for medical and identification purposes in real life.

Meaning in my humble opinion an auto-g could retain a sample of the current sample of hair/skin and try again (with a percentage roll of success of 75% for the first, 50% second and 25% third and 0% at the 4th sample). If using a sample from the previous transformation.

It also begs the question of clones and genetic drift.

Does the clone DNA show as "cloned" material and genetic drift?

There is also the issue of using an auto-g of finding supernatural creatures as an auto-g can't mimic them.