Advantages Issues

[Vulcan]

This depends on how the group uses Pushing. In our group, it is reserved for "above and beyond" heroic situations, not "gee, the Bad Guy's not going down - guess I'll spend some extra END and Push."

"Gee, the Bad Guy's not going down when we hit him hard" tells me that perhaps my attacks are a bit underpowered in relation to his defenses. SO perhaps pushing is not unjustified...

At any rate, I paid points for it. I could just have easily left the EGO roll off (it doesn't save any points until you get up to around 50 AP or so) and had an Easy Push I could do all the time. So long as the AP/DC caps aren't violated, what's the problem?

[ajackson]

This depends on how the group uses Pushing. In our group, it is reserved for "above and beyond" heroic situations, not "gee, the Bad Guy's not going down - guess I'll spend some extra END and Push."

Huh. I don't really see anything wrong with that logic for pushing. The problematic push behavior I've seen is "Gee, it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push".

[Hugh Neilson]

"Gee, the Bad Guy's not going down when we hit him hard" tells me that perhaps my attacks are a bit underpowered in relation to his defenses. SO perhaps pushing is not unjustified...

At any rate, I paid points for it. I could just have easily left the EGO roll off (it doesn't save any points until you get up to around 50 AP or so) and had an Easy Push I could do all the time. So long as the AP/DC caps aren't violated, what's the problem?

I have no problem with your construct. You paid for the ability to pay a pile of END and add a couple of extra dice. If, as a GM, I didn't want that available, it's easy for me to disallow the construct.

I don't see "I want to win the fight faster" or even "I want to win the fight" as being sufficiently unusual and/or heroic to justify Pushing. If Pushing is routine, then losing the ability to Push justifies a limitation in some form. If it is an extremely rare event then loss of the ability to Push isn't a significant limitation.

Huh. I don't really see anything wrong with that logic for pushing. The problematic push behavior I've seen is "it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push".

As opposed to "The bad guy isn't going down fast enough to suit my tastes and I have lots of END - might as well Push", or better still "I'm running out of STUN but I still have lots of END - might as well Push since I won't have any END if I'm KO'd", I don't see "Gee, it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push" as being all that bad.

But none of these seem exceptionally heroic to me either, so none of them would be justification to Push in our games. YMMV.

[Vulcan]

Huh. I don't really see anything wrong with that logic for pushing. The problematic push behavior I've seen is "Gee, it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push".

I agree, that is an inappropriate use of pushing.

[The Main Man]

While I think that Vulcan's example is fine, here's a thought: He could technically Push both of them as I understand the Push rules.

Oh yeah, and Haymaker!

Multiple Power Attacks, gotta love 'em.

[Midspec]

Q: Should some of the optional new Areas of Effect in the Character Creation Handbook be incorporated into the core rules?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. I think AoE (Trail) and the Cage modifier are definitely worthwhile, and probably Sight Range and Voice Range as well. They’re all things that tend to be fairly common and that can be done with the current system, but it will save gamers time and effort to give them an easy, unified way to do them.

One if the things that always didnt quite click with me concerning AoE was the lack of definition when it came to Facing attacks with an AoE advantage on a 3 dimensional scale.

Take a humble AoE: Cone advantage for example. At it's most simplest form, its a triangle that is X hexes on a side, and a diameter of X hexes at the end - this is very simple and sweet to show on a hex grid (HSR 5th ed p249, for example) What, however are you to do if said cone isn't aimed straight out along the horizon?

This raises two issues in my mind: Facing, and calculating an affected area accurately.

There's 6 facing directions on the horizontal plane. Should this be expanded to include 6 facings on the verticle plane? The above mentioned example from HSR 5th ed. gives us a cone who's top border would slope 30 degrees upward and who's bottom border would slope 30 degrees downward (assuming the ground gives way) giving a 60 degree arc of affected area vertically as well as horizontally.

But what if this same cone were aimed so that its top edge went 90 degrees upward and its bottom edge sloped 30 degrees upward (ie: we shift the verticle orientation of the cone 'upwards' one facing.)

How would you represent the area that such a cone would cover on a hex grid?

Answering these questions may also influence the entire hex grid validity issue as well. Are hexes still needed?

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written.

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions.