New advantage "Scour"

[AmadanNaBriona]

Back in the olden days, in the process of doing Ironmongery for our Star Hero campaign (OK.. it was actually our "space game"... Espionage in space), I wrote up an advantage to simulate an attack that damages armor at the same time it does damage to the target. At the time, my reasoning was simple... adding Destruction linked to an attack was cumbersome, especialy to try and tie the two damage rolls together. With the demise of Destruction and its replacement with long term drains, it became even stranger. So I set out with 5th ed to see if it balanced out the way I had it written, realized that Suppress might be my best choice for the construct, and thus...

Scour: +1/2 advantage
for attacks that use the body count on dice (KA's mainly, tho could be applied to other attacks at GM's discretion), similar to Penetrating.
As part of an attack, the "normal body" scored on the damage dice are removed from the targets DEF (rPD &rED). Thus a 3d6 Scour RKA hitting a target for a damage roll of 11 body (rolling 3, 6 and 2 on the dice) would remove 4 points of defence from the target.

Contrasted to a by the rules build as a compound power...
(well use 3d6 RKA as our sample, as the numbers work out cleanly)
3d6 RKA (45 AP)
(will have a range of "Normal body" from 0-6)
plus
3d6 Suppress (15 AP)
Advantages: (+1/2) vs 2 powers simultaneously (rPD & rED), (+1/2) 0 End Cost (+1/2) Persistant (effect is removed by healing natural armor as if it were body, or by repairs to artifical armor) total AP: 37.5
Limitations: (-0) Standard effect (removes 1 DEF per normal body rolled)
(-1/2) linked effect (-1/4) Costs Endurance, at activation only.
Total Cost: 21.4 points

point cost to add a +1/2 advantage to a 3d6 RKA: 22.5

I based the suppress on the cost of Armor (or PD/ED with Damage resistance) at 3 AP for 2 points of Armor, doubled to 6 points per 2 because its a defence, or in other words 3 points per 1 point of resistant defence, with the advantage allowing it to effect PD & ED simultaneously. The cumbersome 0 End Persistant with an activation END cost was needed to make the effect semi permenant while still adding to the END cost of the attack in the same way an advantage would and yet remaining a legal construct.

I have used this house rule advantage for many years in my campaigns without substantially effecting game balance, and it has come in very handy for simulating effects like acid attacks, particle beams that slice holes in armor and the like.
What do ya'll think?

EDIT: One thing I forgot to factor in to the compound power version is some form of "stopped by Hardened" limitation

[schir1964]

I... like it!!!

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Pretty cool. Looks like it'll work out nicely too and stay balanced.


Personally, I don't like Modifiers effectively adding new Power to a Power though. Seems a bit weird. Like there should be a Damaging Advantage for Entangles so that the dice rolled will also do normal damage to the target in addition to entangling him before anything else of this sort. The only other issue is figuring out what happens when you want something like Scour, but it wipes out the target's INT instead of his defenses...

But for a specialized campaign setting it should work out just fine.

[Citizen Keen]

I agree, in a specific context, I like it.

I would have thought it was unbalanced, but with the parallel power build using existing rules, I see it's fine.

[prestidigitator]

Think is, I don't think Persistant should be applied like you used it. If anything, it should be Continuous and Uncontrolled, which is going to be quite a bit more expensive.

I actually think the more straightforward way to do it would be with Drain, not Suppress. Then you buy the Fade Rate down until the effect is effectively indefinite. This is what Drain is for. This, too, is probably going to be a lot more expensive than your +1/2.

I rather agree with DR; if you want two effects, make a Linked Power. Done. Maybe your problem is more with things like Drain being temporary. Create a permenant effect? We can use a Fade Rate approach, do some hokey Uncontrolled with 0 End thing, or use Transform. Perhaps the rules for using Transform to add points to a character, but in reverse?

[AmadanNaBriona]

First off, let me explain the Metagame resons I cooked this up. Star Hero, more than many other genres, often leads towards a very high AP value for attacks in order to make them feel "in genre". This usually means that you're looking at rather high defences as well. At the time, I was trying for a campaign where combat "felt" like the combat scenes in Hammers Slammers. While the system already has advantages for bleeding damage past defences (Penetrating) and pucnhing through more effectively( AP), the only systems it has for attacks that can whittle through defences are either on the defence side (abalative) or by using a linked adjustment power. I wanted another power that was effected by, and could help cancel out, hardening, because the way things ended up going, there was a lot of hardneding running around to achieve the combat style I wanted. Scour was designed to help convince characters to keep their heads down, even if they were running around in powered armor or a tank. It increased the dramatic effect of sustained firefights a lot. Heavily armored targets might be able to soak up a few shots, but the more hits they managed to bounce, the more they begin to sweat. I always used hit locations as well, and only "scoured" the location(s) hit. gets that "one more hit on my left panel and I'm dead" Fear and loathing factor.
that being said....
I HATE using drain like this. Its clunky, cumbersome, works against Power Defence, which has yet to be defined in any sort of reasonable pseudo scientific way. Power Def has its place mechanics wise, but is the only defensive power that there is almost nothing you can point to in R/L and say... "Look...Power defence!" with the exception of a few things that work against a specific SFX (EMP Sheilded electronics and flame retardant insulators come to mind) I you go the drain route, you're looking at 20 ap for 1d6 of effect against a defence, which you then have to drop an obscene fade rate multiplier on to reasonably represent actually trashing the armor. And even then... We had one character who was a "man out of time" survey scout who was a few thousand years old thanks to coldsleep and relativity effects. So he could, if hit wioth said drain, conceviably hop back in his ship and go to sleep till his armor was fixed. Not that I'd allow such an assinine move, but you see where I'm going with this? On top of this issue... The attacker is paying obscene amounts of points for a (mostly) incendantal effect. So you pay for a every 100 years fade rate on the drain. Bob the character gets hit. now... we have two options. Let Bob buy new armor, in which case MOST of the massive number of points spent for the fade rate advantage are lost. Or you don't let Bob ever replace his armor... In which case the points are justified, but the character is hosed, because after bouncing a couple of hits off his armor, he's gonna have to watch over his shoulder for Ewoks with slingshots trying to kill him.
I went with the suppress model for just this reason. Its cumulative, which it needs to fit the design. I avoided Continous because Suppress is already constant, and making it continuous would allow it to keep depleting the armor. (most of my acid attacks using Scour were in fact built with Delayed effect to simulate this). I added persistent because even if you kill the guy who shot a hole in your armor, the hole doesn't go "poof" and disappear. 0 End Supresses require a defined way to remove the Suppress, which works (get new armor, or heal. Healing like it was Body does mean that healing technology/psi powers/magic and what not could help replace the lost power points, so there is some natural armor vs store bought balance)
Uncontrolled was a possiblity I looked at, to achive the exact same "how does it come back" effect, but as its required for a 0 END suppress I felt it to be redundant. Adding the appropriate Linked limitation to the RKA to make the two attacks counter dependant on one another would prbbaly get enough points to add the extra +1/2 for uncontrolled if it bugs you.

I suppose you could do something like this as a transform, but I''ve been trying REALLY hard not to default every semi permenant effect into a transform. It's a cop out.

[prestidigitator]

First off, let me explain the Metagame resons I cooked this up. Star Hero, more than many other genres, often leads towards a very high AP value for attacks in order to make them feel "in genre". This usually means that you're looking at rather high defences as well. At the time, I was trying for a campaign where combat "felt" like the combat scenes in Hammers Slammers. While the system already has advantages for bleeding damage past defences (Penetrating) and pucnhing through more effectively( AP), the only systems it has for attacks that can whittle through defences are either on the defence side (abalative) or by using a linked adjustment power. I wanted another power that was effected by, and could help cancel out, hardening, because the way things ended up going, there was a lot of hardneding running around to achieve the combat style I wanted. Scour was designed to help convince characters to keep their heads down, even if they were running around in powered armor or a tank. It increased the dramatic effect of sustained firefights a lot. Heavily armored targets might be able to soak up a few shots, but the more hits they managed to bounce, the more they begin to sweat. I always used hit locations as well, and only "scoured" the location(s) hit. gets that "one more hit on my left panel and I'm dead" Fear and loathing factor.
Huh. Well, you could always say all external defenses in your campaign have Ablative on them. What's wrong with that? It sounds somewhat similar to the kind of thing you are trying to do anyway.


that being said....
I HATE using drain like this. Its clunky, cumbersome, works against Power Defence, which has yet to be defined in any sort of reasonable pseudo scientific way. Power Def has its place mechanics wise, but is the only defensive power that there is almost nothing you can point to in R/L and say... "Look...Power defence!" with the exception of a few things that work against a specific SFX (EMP Sheilded electronics and flame retardant insulators come to mind) I you go the drain route, you're looking at 20 ap for 1d6 of effect against a defence, which you then have to drop an obscene fade rate multiplier on to reasonably represent actually trashing the armor. And even then...
It seems pretty obscene to me to take away another character's defense, especially on a, "permenant," basis. Your problem with this seems to simply be that it is expensive, but that is what is ultimately balanced in the system; if you take away someone's defenses, they are...well...defenseless. Where once they could stand there and bounce bullets, now they must cower for fear of their life. BTW, Power Defense works against Suppress as well. Drain is cumulative, just like Suppress. If Drain is, "clunky and cumbersome," then Suppress is just as much so (I believe more so, because Suppress is very much intented to be temporary, while Drain is designed to last beyond when the attacker stops maintaining it).


We had one character who was a "man out of time" survey scout who was a few thousand years old thanks to coldsleep and relativity effects. So he could, if hit wioth said drain, conceviably hop back in his ship and go to sleep till his armor was fixed. Not that I'd allow such an assinine move, but you see where I'm going with this?
You won't allow it? Great! Problem solved, right? See where you're going with it? Not really. It sounds like you are running a game with a reasonably high amount of, "realism," so the setting is likely to have plenty happen to make the hundred year (or whatever) Fade Rate insignificant compared to other environmental issues.


On top of this issue... The attacker is paying obscene amounts of points for a (mostly) incendantal effect. So you pay for a every 100 years fade rate on the drain. Bob the character gets hit. now... we have two options. Let Bob buy new armor, in which case MOST of the massive number of points spent for the fade rate advantage are lost. Or you don't let Bob ever replace his armor... In which case the points are justified, but the character is hosed, because after bouncing a couple of hits off his armor, he's gonna have to watch over his shoulder for Ewoks with slingshots trying to kill him.
I went with the suppress model for just this reason. Its cumulative, which it needs to fit the design. I avoided Continous because Suppress is already constant, and making it continuous would allow it to keep depleting the armor. (most of my acid attacks using Scour were in fact built with Delayed effect to simulate this). I added persistent because even if you kill the guy who shot a hole in your armor, the hole doesn't go "poof" and disappear. 0 End Supresses require a defined way to remove the Suppress, which works (get new armor, or heal. Healing like it was Body does mean that healing technology/psi powers/magic and what not could help replace the lost power points, so there is some natural armor vs store bought balance)
Uncontrolled was a possiblity I looked at, to achive the exact same "how does it come back" effect, but as its required for a 0 END suppress I felt it to be redundant. Adding the appropriate Linked limitation to the RKA to make the two attacks counter dependant on one another would prbbaly get enough points to add the extra +1/2 for uncontrolled if it bugs you.
You can always allow Skills and/or other technology to work against a Drain, just like a Suppress. I believe Healing can reverse a Drain (it could in 4th anyway). I'm not saying you can't choose to use Suppress, but it just seems to me you are trying to make Suppress work exactly like a straightforward version of Drain, which goes against a Meta-Rule and is extra work besides. Even if you just make it a new Advantage, I'd base the value on the most straightforward and obvious way to do it using the existing system, which is without a doubt Drain.

BTW, if you use Uncontrolled instead of Persistant, it will come to the same value you got, and there is nothing to say an Uncontrolled Power won't last past its originator's death (this is in fact left explicitly up to the GM, I believe).


I suppose you could do something like this as a transform, but I''ve been trying REALLY hard not to default every semi permenant effect into a transform. It's a cop out.
I'm afraid I just don't understand that one. (Semi-)Permenant effects are exactly what Transform was designed for. You could probably even get away with the Transform changing the armor to something useless, and have partial effect along the way reduce the armor's actual value. Not that I would necessarily use Transform myself. I'd consider both Transform and Drain valid approaches, and have to think a bit to really choose myself.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Huh. Well, you could always say all external defenses in your campaign have Ablative on them. What's wrong with that? It sounds somewhat similar to the kind of thing you are trying to do anyway.
well... the idea was that all defences AREN'T ablative. Only certain effects would inflict armor damage.


It seems pretty obscene to me to take away another character's defense, especially on a, "permenant," basis. Your problem with this seems to simply be that it is expensive, but that is what is ultimately balanced in the system; if you take away someone's defenses, they are...well...defenseless. Where once they could stand there and bounce bullets, now they must cower for fear of their life. BTW, Power Defense works against Suppress as well. Drain is cumulative, just like Suppress. If Drain is, "clunky and cumbersome," then Suppress is just as much so (I believe more so, because Suppress is very much intented to be temporary, while Drain is designed to last beyond when the attacker stops maintaining it).
You can always allow Skills and/or other technology to work against a Drain, just like a Suppress. I believe Healing can reverse a Drain (it could in 4th anyway). I'm not saying you can't choose to use Suppress, but it just seems to me you are trying to make Suppress work exactly like a straightforward version of Drain, which goes against a Meta-Rule and is extra work besides. Even if you just make it a new Advantage, I'd base the value on the most straightforward and obvious way to do it using the existing system, which is without a doubt Drain.
Part of the reason for the custom advantage was to divorce the effect from Power Defence and tie it to hardening instead. I handwaved this as approximately a net +0.
The reasoning behind using suppress was that the conditions for removing the damage aren't time based, but rather condition based. Supresses go completely away. Drains heal. And I still have issues with drain fade rates for permentant effects. like you said... they're nasty. But its a kind of nasty that, like I said, leaves the GM on the horns of a dilemma... Do I let the expensive armor destroying power hose my PC and be worth its hideous cost, or do I let my PC replace his defences between scens or sessions... thus invalidating the massive cost of the drain.

BTW, if you use Uncontrolled instead of Persistant, it will come to the same value you got, and there is nothing to say an Uncontrolled Power won't last past its originator's death (this is in fact left explicitly up to the GM, I believe).
Good point and a great catch. If I used the actual construct rather than just building it to compare effect to the advantage I'd definitely change it


I'm afraid I just don't understand that one. (Semi-)Permenant effects are exactly what Transform was designed for. You could probably even get away with the Transform changing the armor to something useless, and have partial effect along the way reduce the armor's actual value. Not that I would necessarily use Transform myself. I'd consider both Transform and Drain valid approaches, and have to think a bit to really choose myself.
To clarify my earlier statement.
I really like transforms. A lot. its actually really WAY to easy to do almost anything not covered elsewhere with transforms. But as a way of doing a cost comparison to another effect to see if my custom advatage was approximately costed right, it wouldn't work.
the problem with the transform approach is that its a bit sketchy. I thought about a transform that gives the armor the Ablative limit, but in play it is clunky, again. The model I was working with, by following the Penetrating mechanism, works rather elegantly and doesn't cause much of an in play headache

EDIT: BTW... thanks for the feedback Prestidigitator

[Dust Raven]

I was fiddling with the numbers of this idea and came to some interesting results. By my best estimation, this should be a +1 1/2 Advantage, not a +1/2. For one, it's effects are far more powerful than a simple +1/2 would normally give it. Think about it. If given the choice between Armor Piercing and Scour, which would you take? For a +1/2, Scour each and every time. Not only will it reduce the target's DEF for my next hit, it reduces it for everybody's next hit as well, and has a cumulative effect. Wondering about this, I played with the numbers of using Suppress and other Powers to achieve an identical effect as described. This is what I came up with.

Suppress is undoubtedly the wrong mechanic to use, no matter what you do with it. Persistant or Uncontrolled, it's a contuing power with a limited range (that is, the range isn't infinate). Should the target get far enough away, all his armor would come back. Doesn't sound like the right effect.

Drain works. It's effects last until the points return, and the return rate can be dropped to however low you want it. The trick is overcoming that Power Defense issue, which you'd have with Suppress anyway. That's what NND is for. I'm not sure about the original concept of Scour, but it seems in line with things like Armor Piercing and Penetrating, so I figure if the target's Armor is Hardened, Scour shouldn't have any effect, so there's the NND. Power Defense need not apply.

The final work up would look like this, for a 3d6 effect:

Scour: Drain Armor 3d6 (standard effect: 9 points), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), NND (Hardened Advantage on Armor; +1/2), Ranged (+1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Month; +2); Points Return Automatically If Armor Is Repaired/Replaced (-1/2), Linked (RKA; -1/4) Real Cost 73.

A +1 1/2 Advantage would actually increase the cost of an RKA 3d6 by 67 points, but I feel this is close enough. I picked a rate of 5/month because it seemed that any character would end up getting his armor fixed or replaced by that point anyway, so it's effectively "forever" as far as the game is concerned.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I was fiddling with the numbers of this idea and came to some interesting results. By my best estimation, this should be a +1 1/2 Advantage, not a +1/2. For one, it's effects are far more powerful than a simple +1/2 would normally give it. Think about it. If given the choice between Armor Piercing and Scour, which would you take? For a +1/2, Scour each and every time. Not only will it reduce the target's DEF for my next hit, it reduces it for everybody's next hit as well, and has a cumulative effect. Wondering about this, I played with the numbers of using Suppress and other Powers to achieve an identical effect as described. This is what I came up with.

Suppress is undoubtedly the wrong mechanic to use, no matter what you do with it. Persistant or Uncontrolled, it's a contuing power with a limited range (that is, the range isn't infinate). Should the target get far enough away, all his armor would come back. Doesn't sound like the right effect.

Drain works. It's effects last until the points return, and the return rate can be dropped to however low you want it. The trick is overcoming that Power Defense issue, which you'd have with Suppress anyway. That's what NND is for. I'm not sure about the original concept of Scour, but it seems in line with things like Armor Piercing and Penetrating, so I figure if the target's Armor is Hardened, Scour shouldn't have any effect, so there's the NND. Power Defense need not apply.

The final work up would look like this, for a 3d6 effect:

Scour: Drain Armor 3d6 (standard effect: 9 points), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), NND (Hardened Advantage on Armor; +1/2), Ranged (+1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Month; +2); Points Return Automatically If Armor Is Repaired/Replaced (-1/2), Linked (RKA; -1/4) Real Cost 73.

A +1 1/2 Advantage would actually increase the cost of an RKA 3d6 by 67 points, but I feel this is close enough. I picked a rate of 5/month because it seemed that any character would end up getting his armor fixed or replaced by that point anyway, so it's effectively "forever" as far as the game is concerned.

You've got some good points here.
One possible quibble is that the final toatal cost with this write up SHOULD also include the point break for putting the -1/2 Linked limitation on the RKA as well, because if its supposed to model an advantage neither can be used without the other. That drops 15 points off the total cost, which wacks things a bit out of line just a touch.
Another ione, whichh I freely admit I may be spacing out on, is that the effect doesn't seem to be tied to or limited by the damage on the RKA.

I think I'm convinced that it needs to be a larger Advantage, but I'm still not convinced that the effect is worth a +1 1/2 in practical terms... the same as an attack with NND (common defence) Does Body, which seems to me to be better than this ability. I could see it as a +1 Advantage... It seems in line with Does Body, Continuous, or Useable as Attack in utility.

[Dust Raven]

You've got some good points here.
One possible quibble is that the final toatal cost with this write up SHOULD also include the point break for putting the -1/2 Linked limitation on the RKA as well, because if its supposed to model an advantage neither can be used without the other. That drops 15 points off the total cost, which wacks things a bit out of line just a touch.
Another ione, whichh I freely admit I may be spacing out on, is that the effect doesn't seem to be tied to or limited by the damage on the RKA.
True, but being forced to use such an Advantage doesn't seem very limiting to me. In any case, the value of that bonus would depend highly on other Modifiers on the RKA. It could be more, it could be less.


I think I'm convinced that it needs to be a larger Advantage, but I'm still not convinced that the effect is worth a +1 1/2 in practical terms... the same as an attack with NND (common defence) Does Body, which seems to me to be better than this ability. I could see it as a +1 Advantage... It seems in line with Does Body, Continuous, or Useable as Attack in utility.

I think it's right up there with AVLD. It is extremely effective. It allows even a small attack to eventually bore through any level of defense while allowing other attacks without this Advantage to take advantage of it's effects. This second part no other Advantage does.

[AmadanNaBriona]

OK...so heres another, slightly more "game design philsophy" and less crunchy mechanics....

do you think that, if it was used the way I did in our campaign
(i.e. reducing the armor only on the specific location hit), it should be tired the same way 5th does NND, Autofire and the like...
Perhaps +1 1/2 normally, but, say +3/4 if applied only to a specific location?
(As this reduces the EWWWWWW factor by a LOT)
:D

[Gary]

Speaking of Autofire, be very careful. An Autofire Scour attack could reduce the target's defenses by a ton in one phase.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Speaking of Autofire, be very careful. An Autofire Scour attack could reduce the target's defenses by a ton in one phase.

very very true. Remember folks... while point costs weren't all that important because it was a heroic level game, I used this advantage in a campaign that lasted some 8 years. there were only a few semi common weapon systems that used Scour (and many of them were AP as well) and they always caused a cartain amount of PC "Whoa... DUCK!" moments.
Particle Beams, for instance, had a very disctinct bright green signature that caused anyone with a smidgen of combat experience to hit cover and get real serious in a big hurry.

[prestidigitator]

OK...so heres another, slightly more "game design philsophy" and less crunchy mechanics....

do you think that, if it was used the way I did in our campaign
(i.e. reducing the armor only on the specific location hit), it should be tired the same way 5th does NND, Autofire and the like...
Perhaps +1 1/2 normally, but, say +3/4 if applied only to a specific location?
(As this reduces the EWWWWWW factor by a LOT)
:D
That's interesting. I wouldn't drop it by that much, though. If you roll randomly for hit location, it is likely you will be hitting the same spot (body) quite often. If the attacker is targetting, they are likely to aim for the same spot to take advantage. If a single location is affected, I'd drop it by 1/4 to 1/2 at most.

[prestidigitator]

very very true. Remember folks... while point costs weren't all that important because it was a heroic level game, I used this advantage in a campaign that lasted some 8 years. there were only a few semi common weapon systems that used Scour (and many of them were AP as well) and they always caused a cartain amount of PC "Whoa... DUCK!" moments.
Particle Beams, for instance, had a very disctinct bright green signature that caused anyone with a smidgen of combat experience to hit cover and get real serious in a big hurry.
Well shoot! Just from the description it sounds like a +1 1/2. ;)

Seriously, you have a very devastating effect on your hands. I wouldn't underestimate the point value.

[Dust Raven]

OK...so heres another, slightly more "game design philsophy" and less crunchy mechanics....

do you think that, if it was used the way I did in our campaign
(i.e. reducing the armor only on the specific location hit), it should be tired the same way 5th does NND, Autofire and the like...
Perhaps +1 1/2 normally, but, say +3/4 if applied only to a specific location?
(As this reduces the EWWWWWW factor by a LOT)
:D

I'm not up on Sectional Defenses in 5th Edition, but this doesn't sound like too much of a limiting factor. Such campaigns tend to allow targeting, and those OCV penalties aren't that hard to over come, and some aren't even all that bad (especially if you just take "body shots" or "high shots").

[AmadanNaBriona]

Well shoot! Just from the description it sounds like a +1 1/2. ;)

Seriously, you have a very devastating effect on your hands. I wouldn't underestimate the point value.

LMAO
Ok, ok... you may have a vaild point there.
And they weren't anywhere near the nastiest weapons in the game

IIRC that honor went to an illegal black ops assaination weapon that did a 5d6 NND does body, Invisible power effects variable time delay RKA monster of a hideaway weapon. possession was a capital offence. It was intended as a plot device toy. One player was assigned one for a mission, and used it with the reverence, stealth, and caution it deserved. Another player lifted it off him and proceeded to wreak mayhem with it. Guess which one got arrested and executed by firing squad? :D

[Black Lotus]

LMAO
Ok, ok... you may have a vaild point there.
And they weren't anywhere near the nastiest weapons in the game

IIRC that honor went to an illegal black ops assaination weapon that did a 5d6 NND does body, Invisible power effects variable time delay RKA monster of a hideaway weapon. possession was a capital offence. It was intended as a plot device toy. One player was assigned one for a mission, and used it with the reverence, stealth, and caution it deserved. Another player lifted it off him and proceeded to wreak mayhem with it. Guess which one got arrested and executed by firing squad? :D

Since there was a GM running the game, I'm guessing the havoc-wreaker bought the bullet. In real life, though, my money would be on the careful one. After all the havoc, the berserker would return it to the careful guy, and THEN the cops would show up. :fear:

That's a kewl weapon, by the way. :D

[Trebuchet]

I think I'm convinced that it needs to be a larger Advantage, but I'm still not convinced that the effect is worth a +1 1/2 in practical terms... the same as an attack with NND (common defence) Does Body, which seems to me to be better than this ability. I could see it as a +1 Advantage... It seems in line with Does Body, Continuous, or Useable as Attack in utility.An interesting idea, but I've got a few questions.

1) What is the defense against this attack? Hardened? Power Defense? It is a metarule that all attacks must have a defense, and the defense is always much cheaper than the attack.

2) Isn't it a rule that attacks versus defenses cost double? Or has that been dropped for 5e?

3) Since the damage to the target's defenses help all of his opponents rather than just the shooter, I would think it reasonable to include "Usable by Others" when calculating comparable costs.

I think Dust Raven's suggestion of +1½ Advantage is a minimum for this Advantage; and +2 would not be out of line. I think this should be a tremendously expensive Advantage because it's a tremendously effective effect, since it's essentially Transforming a target's defenses into increasingly less effective defenses for anyone shooting at that target.

And rather than Scour, I would call this advantage Degrade.

[Hugh Neilson]

Seems to me that weapons of this nature in any game would result in Hardened becoming a very prized advantage for armor. Hey, should I have +10/10 Armor for 30 points, or +8/+8 Hardened armor that won't get Scoured away?

Actually, I'd probably go with +10/+10 and a ReflectoShield to send these nasty attacks back against their originator, given the choice :whistle:

Of course, access to either option (as well as the advantage itself) depends on the game setting. I've never been a bog fan of "these big nasty weapons are available to the enemy but if your characters use them "indiscriminately", it's off to prison or worse" settings.

[Dust Raven]

Seems to me that weapons of this nature in any game would result in Hardened becoming a very prized advantage for armor. Hey, should I have +10/10 Armor for 30 points, or +8/+8 Hardened armor that won't get Scoured away?

By the general description of the Advantage, and the way it's been written up in example powers, it only affects the Armor Power. So things like normal defenses and a FF wouldn't be affected, and so those powers might be more desired overall. Given the genre though, it's unlikely anyone will have enough natural ED, let along Damage Resistance, and FF technology might not exist or be much more expensive (not in points, but in cash).

[Fox1]

Off hand I think this is an answer to the question no one ever asked. Except those who lost control of what is and is not allowed in their game in the first place.

For a HERO design philosophy it comes across even worse. If you want to do an attack with two very different affects- linked and combo powers are the means to do it- not a new advantage that breaks new ground.

[AmadanNaBriona]

My intent was to try and comparison price it so that it affected resistant persistant defence... essentially Armor and PD/ED with damage reistance. This is actually another small beef I have with adjustment powers... Defence powers stack seamlessly, but making a single adjustment power that affects that stack of defences requires getting crafty and tricksty... do you use the +1/4 effects one power of a group advantage and handwave that once you'e penetrated a defenceit affects the next one in line? or do you drop a +2 advantage to affect all defence powers then limit the heck out of it so it effects them sequentially instead of all at once?
In any case, in practice my intent wa that it would affect all resistant defences, but non persistant ones would simply be restored with another application of the power... until the defenders next phase IOW. So force feilds would be a lot better for resisting these kinds of attacks.
Which is why, as Dust Raven guessed, Forcefeilds were an uncommon defence... expensive and bulky backpack sized generators were the smallest models around and were still considered rare. Sheilds require a fairly massive power supply, and are thus usually found only in emplaced positions, large vehicles and the like.
And yes, Hardened defences were very valuable in this campaign. They were the hallmark of millitary grade armor. Civilian body armor could be quite effective (upwards of 15 def) but virtually every millitary weapon has some form of AP, Penetrating, Scour, Peircing, or a combonation of the above. Civilian armor gets cut up like butter.

I used a variety of other custom modifiers as well... many, like AP capped, were taken from the original Golden Age of Champions. Others, like 1/4 AP (+1/4 advantage, removes 1/4 of targets protection), 3/4 AP (+1 advantage, removes 3/4 of a targets protection), and Burstfire (+1/2 advantage to autofire, makes hit interval 1 hit per point attack is made by while doubling number of 'extra" shots required to spread attacks) were added to increase granularity and make the weapons charts interesting. No one weapon every really stood out as being the end all superweapon. The common troopers shoulder arm was very similar to the M41-A Pulse Rifle from Aliens... caseless select fire high capacity bullpup rifle firing explosive Armor Peircing shells. There were only a very few weapons that were truely restriced in use, like the Whisper (above mentioned Black Ops weapon... fires a hypervelocity mircopellet of a tailored neurotoxin thats been contained in a tough polymer shell that decays according to a preprogrammed half life. Dial in your time delay, point it, press a button. unless the target is sheilded or it hits double hardened armor, the pellet slips in with about as much damage as a mosquito bite... till the polymer decays and the target drops over dead.), and those weapons were all exceptionally rare. I actually ended up creating a scenario just so a player would finally have a chance to use one. Until then, it had existed as nothing more than a set of stats, a vague threat, and something to wistfully ask smugglers about only to be laughed at.

[Hugh Neilson]

By the general description of the Advantage, and the way it's been written up in example powers, it only affects the Armor Power. So things like normal defenses and a FF wouldn't be affected, and so those powers might be more desired overall. Given the genre though, it's unlikely anyone will have enough natural ED, let along Damage Resistance, and FF technology might not exist or be much more expensive (not in points, but in cash).

It's "given the genre" that bothers me. Without knowing what will be available, or won't be, the value of the advantage is hard to assess. If hardened armor is virtually unheard of, then even "NND - Hardened" wouldn't be legitimate, since it's not common.

That means I fall back on "system as a whole" to assess whether a value is reasonable, and what impact it will have on a game. To me, "Scour" is a lot more efective than "Armor Piercing" and therefore should be blocked by the same thing.

AP halves defenses only once (in effect, it suppresses half the target's defenses, NND vs. hardened defenses, for one attack). Scour reduces defenses long-term, applicable to all attackers, which seems far more effective. Getting the same effect some other way (long-term NND Drain of 1 rPD per d6 of EB) would be much more expensive than the 1/2 advantage proposed. 2.5 points for an NND drain of 1 PD or 1 ED seems very cheap.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Off hand I think this is an answer to the question no one ever asked. Except those who lost control of what is and is not allowed in their game in the first place.

For a HERO design philosophy it comes across even worse. If you want to do an attack with two very different affects- linked and combo powers are the means to do it- not a new advantage that breaks new ground.

Wow...
I'm frankly amazed to hear that from you. We may have butted foreheads occasionaly, but with your dedication to combat realism I expected that you would see the value in an attack that has a collateral, burn through effect on defences that is directly tied to the amount of body inflicted.
Not intended as a jibe, BTW... I am honestly really just suprised. :nonp:

[prestidigitator]

I had another idea. You could use a Find Weakness that is Usable by Others and has a reasonably high roll (say 18-). Then make it usable to the number of people who could reasonably attack the target at any point in time, give it Ranged, and be done. Instead of buying up the number of users, you could give the roll another +10 and just call it an, "Extraordinary Effect."

Now apply Gradual Effect to the Find Weakness (maybe a minute), and add a Limitation, "Duration of Gradual Effect Only Elapses When Linked Power Hits (-1)." It may be slightly funky mechanic-wise, but it is an interesting idea. :)

[AmadanNaBriona]

I had another idea. You could use a Find Weakness that is Usable by Others and has a reasonably high roll (say 18-). Then make it usable to the number of people who could reasonably attack the target at any point in time, give it Ranged, and be done. Instead of buying up the number of users, you could give the roll another +10 and just call it an, "Extraordinary Effect."

Now apply Gradual Effect to the Find Weakness (maybe a minute), and add a Limitation, "Duration of Gradual Effect Only Elapses When Linked Power Hits (-1)." It may be slightly funky mechanic-wise, but it is an interesting idea. :)
The fools call me mad, but I'll show them! I'll show them ALL!!!!
Muwahahahahahahah.
Congradulations Dr Frankenstein, uh, Presitdigitaor on the creation of your monster, uh... new construct :D
That is far and away one of the most sideways ideas I've seen in forever.
Bloody amazing peice of Rules-jitsu

[prestidigitator]

The fools call me mad, but I'll show them! I'll show them ALL!!!!
Muwahahahahahahah.
Congradulations Dr Frankenstein, uh, Presitdigitaor on the creation of your monster, uh... new construct :D
That is far and away one of the most sideways ideas I've seen in forever.
Bloody amazing peice of Rules-jitsu
Aww, shucks. T'weren't nothin', really. I don't think no ways but sideways, really. Well, maybe upside-down now and then. It's awful tricky keeping the ol' ticker working while on yer feet ya know. :)

[Dust Raven]

Off hand I think this is an answer to the question no one ever asked. Except those who lost control of what is and is not allowed in their game in the first place.

For a HERO design philosophy it comes across even worse. If you want to do an attack with two very different affects- linked and combo powers are the means to do it- not a new advantage that breaks new ground.

Who are you and what have you done with Fox1? :)

I whole heartedly agree, things like this should normally just use the existing mechanics of the rules and leave it at that. In the case of a highly specific genre, which is the only place this modifier is to be used and to a limited degree at that, why not save some ink?

Not to be an ass or anything, but as sane as this suggestion of your is, it seems strange coming from someone who's all but completely rewritten the rules for weapons and armed combat. :D

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I'll have to suggest scour and play around with it abit, but i'd say +1, only to a specific hit location (Because we use sectional armor and hit locations) and goes up to +1 1/2 if applied with autofire because that can get really dangerous really fast

"ok guys you hold him, i'll hit him with the scour bullets"

again this should be one of those things where you need more lvls of scour than they have hardend

I think that the way i'd run it with FF and FW, is that you could have scour effect one of those, built when you make the char, so i could have 2 lvls of scour, one on armor and one on FF, and then if i hit someone with a hardened armor but not FF i still hurt the FF, but it's really really expensive to do so (which it should be)

[AmadanNaBriona]

I'll have to suggest scour and play around with it abit, but i'd say +1, only to a specific hit location (Because we use sectional armor and hit locations) and goes up to +1 1/2 if applied with autofire because that can get really dangerous really fast

"ok guys you hold him, i'll hit him with the scour bullets"

again this should be one of those things where you need more lvls of scour than they have hardend

I think that the way i'd run it with FF and FW, is that you could have scour effect one of those, built when you make the char, so i could have 2 lvls of scour, one on armor and one on FF, and then if i hit someone with a hardened armor but not FF i still hurt the FF, but it's really really expensive to do so (which it should be)

I like that idea a lot. Thanks Roy.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

oh i forgot, this is best in a heroic game so that players can buy new equipment as bullets shredd it, beware in superheroic!

[Fox1]

Not to be an ass or anything, but as sane as this suggestion of your is, it seems strange coming from someone who's all but completely rewritten the rules for weapons and armed combat. :D

From a construction rule PoV, the only change I made for weapons and armed combat was the addition of a more detailed armor effect limit. One that HERO almost had at one time itself.

Other than that, I use the same powers and same construction rules. Only the DCs have changed.

Compared to 'Scour', it's far less involved and not a new direction. More of a new standard.

[zornwil]

Very nice idea, I like it a lot! I just want to back up the comment on defenses - in designing Cyber Ninja Pirates, I found this to be an issue, and it even came up immediately in play-test, and especially because I forgot one of the basic rules I had put into my notes but not in the first draft - all defenses (except innate character DEF, which is ultimately limited) are essentially ablative, and I do it simply as indicating that 1/3 of the attack damage reduces the DEF directly (e.g., a 30 point damage takes away 10 from DEF). Bear in mind this game is very very genre/setting-specific and all attacks are basically Killing in HERO terms. I am not recommending this as an approach, but rather backing up that I have seen the same issue.

Bravo to Prestidigitator as well for his suggestion, and DR for excellent work on fleshing out the model. ANB (if I may call you that), have you edited the first post to include all the input you saw worthy of being included?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Very nice idea, I like it a lot! I just want to back up the comment on defenses - in designing Cyber Ninja Pirates, I found this to be an issue, and it even came up immediately in play-test, and especially because I forgot one of the basic rules I had put into my notes but not in the first draft - all defenses (except innate character DEF, which is ultimately limited) are essentially ablative, and I do it simply as indicating that 1/3 of the attack damage reduces the DEF directly (e.g., a 30 point damage takes away 10 from DEF). Bear in mind this game is very very genre/setting-specific and all attacks are basically Killing in HERO terms. I am not recommending this as an approach, but rather backing up that I have seen the same issue.

Bravo to Prestidigitator as well for his suggestion, and DR for excellent work on fleshing out the model. ANB (if I may call you that), have you edited the first post to include all the input you saw worthy of being included?

Why, thank you kindly Zorn. ANB is fine, or Amadan, or AnB or whatever...I've heard 'em all before. I'm of the philosophy that editing the original post might cause confusion amongst thread Necromancers and searchers, but I will probably go through and compile the thoughts into another post soon. As soon as I get motivated to do so, that is... too many irons in the fire, ya know.

[zornwil]

Looking forward to seeing it as revised. Know what you mean about irons in the fire!

[Vondy]

There are rules for damaging breakable foci (including foci that provide defenses) on page 294 of 5ER. It seems most non-superheroic armor would be defined as a breakable durable focus, which means to would take body every time the wearer took body. It would be destroyed after taking the twice the number of body as the defense it provides. The rules also mention that some foci may lose powers as their body marches towards 0 (destruction). By that same token - it seems fair for armor to accept some sort of activation roll as its body marches towards zero. As a result there are rules (usually ignored for expedience sake) already in place to handle most of the situations where this advantage would be used.

[zornwil]

There are rules for damaging breakable foci (including foci that provide defenses) on page 294 of 5ER. It seems most non-superheroic armor would be defined as a breakable durable focus, which means to would take body every time the wearer took body. It would be destroyed after taking the twice the number of body as the defense it provides. The rules also mention that some foci may lose powers as their body marches towards 0 (destruction). By that same token - it seems fair for armor to accept some sort of activation roll as its body marches towards zero. As a result there are rules (usually ignored for expedience sake) already in place to handle most of the situations where this advantage would be used.
Hmmm...killjoy!

Just kidding. Good point. Then the main "modification" (and it isn't really one) would be for any heroic games where this a GM desires that this come into play to declare that, aside from unusual defenses with GM permission, any foci/armor or the like is considered breakable durable. I would point out that as the discussion you cite is specifically under the Focus Limitation, it begs a GM really calling it out and applying it where most players probably don't presume it would come into play - specifically such as Armor with no Focus explicit Limitation.

PS - I reread the original post in this light; actually, I think ANB still has it correct in what he's saying here, fundamentally, because his intent is to cause damage to the armor and such WITHOUT having to get at the possessor. The complaint/issue is that high defenses are still hard to get at with this rule. His system allows you to do the damage without exceeding DEF, which is a problem I have seen for sci-fi. But I may be misreading what you cited, so please clarify. I don't advocate adding Scour as a core rule, but I think it is a useful house rule that does what the system does not. I welcome being corrected, though.

[Vondy]

Hmmm...killjoy!

Just kidding. Good point. Then the main "modification" (and it isn't really one) would be for any heroic games where this a GM desires that this come into play to declare that, aside from unusual defenses with GM permission, any foci/armor or the like is considered breakable durable. I would point out that as the discussion you cite is specifically under the Focus Limitation, it begs a GM really calling it out and applying it where most players probably don't presume it would come into play - specifically such as Armor with no Focus explicit Limitation.

In my game all weapons and armor are assumed to be breakable durable unless the player specifically defines it differently. However, I only bring into into play when there's an SFX or plot reason to do so. As for your latter scenario, I understand what your saying and agree that would work, but would also point out that a player who doesn't take the focus limitation (for instance, power armor OHID) is by definition someone who doesn't lose their focus (this is mentioned both in the Focus explanation and OHID explanation) and shouldn't therefore be subject to losing it unless an actual adjustment power is used. It doesn't mean it doesn't make internal senses to have their not-focus be affected, but there is a question of fairness in terms of getting what you pay for. I would only feel comfortable damaging their not-focus if the player was cool with it, and would probably force them to take the focus lim if I was inclined to pursue this course of action.


PS - I reread the original post in this light; actually, I think ANB still has it correct in what he's saying here, fundamentally, because his intent is to cause damage to the armor and such WITHOUT having to get at the possessor. The complaint/issue is that high defenses are still hard to get at with this rule. His system allows you to do the damage without exceeding DEF, which is a problem I have seen for sci-fi. But I may be misreading what you cited, so please clarify. I don't advocate adding Scour as a core rule, but I think it is a useful house rule that does what the system does not. I welcome being corrected, though.

You can specifically target a focus, and foci that provide defenses are automatically hit if the target or covered location is hit. As a result, you can simply define the attack as Affects Armor First -0. Or you could use the penetrating advantage, which would do body to the target, and by system default, the armor at the same time. I think penetrating costs the same as Scour as well. The only rules mod you need is defining how much effectiveness the armor loses before being totally destroyed.

How much effectiveness armor loses as it loses body isn't formalized in 5ER (though some loss of effectiveness is strongly implied by the text), but could be done in two (or more) ways:

1) Based on % of body taken, the armor obtains an activation roll (shredded armor)

2) Based on % of body taken, the armor loses effectiveness expressed by points of defense. For instance, when have of its body is lost, armor is reduced to half its defense total, etc. (weakened armor)

[zornwil]

In my game all weapons and armor are assumed to be breakable durable unless the player specifically defines it differently. However, I only bring into into play when there's an SFX or plot reason to do so. As for your latter scenario, I understand what your saying and agree that would work, but would also point out that a player who doesn't take the focus limitation (for instance, power armor OHID) is by definition someone who doesn't lose their focus (this is mentioned both in the Focus explanation and OHID explanation) and shouldn't therefore be subject to losing it unless an actual adjustment power is used. It doesn't mean it doesn't make internal senses to have their not-focus be affected, but there is a question of fairness in terms of getting what you pay for. I would only feel comfortable damaging their not-focus if the player was cool with it, and would probably force them to take the focus lim if I was inclined to pursue this course of action.



You can specifically target a focus, and foci that provide defenses are automatically hit if the target or covered location is hit. As a result, you can simply define the attack as Affects Armor First -0. Or you could use the penetrating advantage, which would do body to the target, and by system default, the armor at the same time. I think penetrating costs the same as Scour as well. The only rules mod you need is defining how much effectiveness the armor loses before being totally destroyed.

How much effectiveness armor loses as it loses body isn't formalized in 5ER (though some loss of effectiveness is strongly implied by the text), but could be done in two (or more) ways:

1) Based on % of body taken, the armor obtains an activation roll (shredded armor)

2) Based on % of body taken, the armor loses effectiveness expressed by points of defense. For instance, when have of its body is lost, armor is reduced to half its defense total, etc. (weakened armor)
Fair enough points. Would you suggest, then, to flesh it out a bit more, that an in-rules alternative to ANB's Scour would be a Linked Attack to Armor Directly? I think that's most directly analagous, since I believe he wanted to prevent directly linking BODY damage to armor damage, and among your suggestions this does that best.

[Vondy]

Fair enough points. Would you suggest, then, to flesh it out a bit more, that an in-rules alternative to ANB's Scour would be a Linked Attack to Armor Directly? I think that's most directly analagous, since I believe he wanted to prevent directly linking BODY damage to armor damage, and among your suggestions this does that best.

I would suggest a "compound power," though that's more of a hero-designer concept than an official rules concept (I maintain it should be an official concept) - I use them a lot. As such, yes, an attack defined as directly targeting the armor is the simplest and most "rules-proper" way to simulate this. And from a second look at the Foci rules, armor does not have exotic defenses unless they are specifically purchased for the armor, not the wearer, as a (-2) limitation. This means a relatively small exotic attack that does body can be a killer for armor given enough time, or with enough quick hits in a short time. A linked power is also an option.

Javelin Class 18MM Auto Guass Pistol with Dragons Breath Anti Armor Acid Rounds:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td align="right">Cost </td><td>Power</td><td align="right">END</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">23 </td><td>18MM Round: Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6+1, 4 clips of 15 Charges (+1/4), Autofire (3 shots; +1/4); OAF (-1), Reduced Penetration (-1/4) </td><td align="right" valign="top">[15]</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">12 </td><td>Acid Resevoir: Killing Attack - Ranged 1 point, 4 clips of 15 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each (+3/4), No Normal Defense ([Standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), Autofire (3 shots; +1 1/4); OAF (-1), Linked (18MM Round; -1/2) </td><td align="right" valign="top">[15 cc]</td></tr></tbody></table>Powers Cost: 35

Power Description:

Lets say I have a a 18MM Fully Auto Magnetic Accelerator Pistol loaded with Dragon's Breath Anti-Armor Acid Rounds - hows that for a patent? Now, the bullets are 18MM, but pistol sized. Still, they should do an impressive amount of damage so I can them a 2d6+1. And I may want a hail of bullets, so I have single shot and 3 round burst selection (AF3). And its got an extendo clip that holds 15 of these bad 18MM mothers; and I've got 4 clips because I expect to be pulling the Chow Yun Fat maneuver. The bullet is assumed to do damage normally, meaning, if it does damage to the target it does damage to the armor. If not, not.

But, my gun exists in a world where the is armor tech is rapidly advancing and 18MM by itself won't cut it. The new Hoplite armor may even defeat 18 MM AP rounds its so tough! So I've got some really killer Anti-Armor Acid Rounds designed to defeat this Hoplite uber-tech armor. The bullets are designed to break on impact with a rigid surface (resistant defense) with the armor and release a fast burning acid. The acid resevior in the bullet is fairly small, but it burns for several seconds (1 Pip RKA, AF3, NND, Does Body, Continuous, Same Number of Charges and Clips, but purchased as Continuing Charges of 1 Turn). Its a part of the bullet, so its either a compound power or linked. The acid is assumed to target the armor first.

The Opposition: Hoplite Mark-III Bioplastic Armor.

15PD/15ED Armor, Hardened + 50% Resistant PD Damage Reduction, Stun Only. It is defined as a breakable durable universal focus. It will be destroyed if it takes 30 Body, but it gets its own DEF against that attack.

Now, how does this play out? The bullet hits and fragments without damaging the target - at least not at first. But the acid starts doing a point of body to the armor on each of my phases for a turn. And I may get multiple hits, meaning the armor is taking several body per phase for a turn. And I may get hits beyond the first phase, so the number of body damage to the armor increases. But wait. The armor is soon weakned to the point where my bullets are blowing through, either because the armor is now useless (reduced to 0 Body) or because the GM has formalized a system for reducing the armors effectiveness in proportion to the damage to the armor (which seems logical based on the text in 5ER). Lets examine the effects of each:

Armor Rendered Useless (0 Body): now that the target who has no resistant defense, he takes full body from the bullet itself, and has acid burning inside his meat-sack form. Ew....

Armor Has Progressive Activation Roll: If the roll is missed, the target takes damage as above. If the roll is made, we continue the break and burn routine until the armor is destroyed, or the bullets get through the broken parts of the armor and kill the wearer.

Armor Has Progressively Reduced Defenses: We proceed as normal, but some body damage may begin to get through from the main attack (also damaging the armor) as the armor provides less and less protection.

And God help you if I have accurate sprayfire and use the rapid fire manuever with ooodles of skill levels... lets assume I don't use rapid fire and accurate sprayfire, but instead have +4 PSLs verses AF Pens and some ranged skill levels and get my hits in. I'm speed four and optimistic:

Phase 1: 3 Hits, Armor takes 3 Body.
Phase 2: 3 Hits, Armor takes 6 Body. (9 Total)
Phase 3: 3 Hits, Armor takes 9 Body. (18 Total)
Phase 4: 3 Hits, Armor takes 12 Body. (30 Total, Armor Destroyed).

A few thoughts:

One: even if I don't get all my hits in the armors life expectancy is probably no more than two turns. Which means, once its gone, the wearer is Dragons Breath Bait and will take an average 8 Body + 1 Body (per phase for a turn) for a total of 13 Body per hit.

Two: If the GM assigns a proportional activation roll to the damage of the armor (using the numbers above), after my second phase the armor should be at 13 or 14- (so some rounds might start to get through (ew...), and after by the end of my third phase it should be down to 10 or 11-. It should be useless at the end of phase four. Now, if I don't get my hits in the effectiveness reduction will take a little longer, but only a little, and some rounds may get through well before the armor is dead.

Three: If the defenses are merely reduced I'm more likely to take them down due to stun than body, but as the armor approaches its death some of the rounds will blow through (injure the target) even though the armor is not completely destroyed.

[zornwil]

I think that compound power is an implicit concept in HERO already, but I agree it should be made explicit. I should have said such, as Linked indicates the ability to separate out, so good point.

And that was a bit of work, well done!