TUV Anchors

[BasilDrag]

In TUV, p63-67, ther are four examples of anchors. All of them are built as STR, 0 END (+1/2), OIF Bulky (-1), Partial Coverage (-2).

 

Um, Partial Coverage on STR??

 

FrED p.316 says Partial Limitation is for DEF and Body. TUV p.31 mentions "Only Within Affected Area", but that's not what an anchor does. An anchor has "strength" to hold the ship in place.

 

Should those example ships have "Only To Limit Ship's Movement" instead of "Partial Coverage" on their anchors' STR? And is that really worth -2??

 

--

The world is a looking glass and gives back to every man the reflection of his own face. -- Thackeray, William M.

[Aroooo]

Re: TUV Anchors

 

Originally posted by BasilDrag

In TUV, p63-67, ther are four examples of anchors. All of them are built as STR, 0 END (+1/2), OIF Bulky (-1), Partial Coverage (-2).

 

Um, Partial Coverage on STR??

 

FrED p.316 says Partial Limitation is for DEF and Body. TUV p.31 mentions "Only Within Affected Area", but that's not what an anchor does. An anchor has "strength" to hold the ship in place.

 

Should those example ships have "Only To Limit Ship's Movement" instead of "Partial Coverage" on their anchors' STR? And is that really worth -2??

 

I have not picked up TUV yet (still waiting for it to hit my store), but I would imagine its because an anchor is mounted to a specific point on a ship. Therefore if some force were to pull on the ship, there is a chance the anchor could break free - either the chain snaps, or the mount point on the ship breaks. But I do agree a -2 is a bit high.

 

Also, why would an anchor be OIF and not OAF?

 

Aroooo

[GamePhil]

I'd be more than willing to entertain that Limited Coverage is possibly not the right Limitation. However, the idea that the Limitation is -2 makes perfect sense to me: it doesn't add to the vehicle's ability to carry things, exert force, or anything else other than grab ahold and keep the ship from moving.

 

As for why it's an OIF, it's because it's attached to the ship. You'd have to break it or spend time detaching it to remove the power.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by GamePhil

As for why it's an OIF, it's because it's attached to the ship. You'd have to break it or spend time detaching it to remove the power.

 

Okay, that makes sense. I was looking at it from the point of how accessible the actual anchor and/or chain was, not how hard it was to remove it from the ship.

 

Aroooo

[BasilDrag]

Re: Re: TUV Anchors

 

Originally posted by Aroooo

I have not picked up TUV yet (still waiting for it to hit my store),

Sorry to hear that. Try http://www.warehouse23.com or http://www.frpgames.com

 

but I would imagine its because an anchor is mounted to a specific point on a ship. Therefore if some force were to pull on the ship, there is a chance the anchor could break free - either the chain snaps, or the mount point on the ship breaks.

Sounds like part and parcel of the Focus Limitation to me.

 

But I do agree a -2 is a bit high.

IMO, it's ludicrously high.

 

--

All great discoveries are made by mistake.

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by GamePhil

As for why it's an OIF, it's because it's attached to the ship. You'd have to break it or spend time detaching it to remove the power.

That sounds like an OAF to me. As an OIF, the anchor has the protection of the rest of the ship. Now, I'm from Arizona and haven't seen many ship up close and personal, but I'm pretty sure their chain/ropes dangle quite openly.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Dust Raven

That sounds like an OAF to me. As an OIF, the anchor has the protection of the rest of the ship. Now, I'm from Arizona and haven't seen many ship up close and personal, but I'm pretty sure their chain/ropes dangle quite openly.

 

Yes, that's because Vehicles have a number of exceptions to the rules about them, including how Foci work. I admit I did forget about that. So it goes.

 

Accessible only means that it doesn't get the Vehicle Defense, and it apparently can't be Grabbed. Otherwise you'd have people snatching away the guns for a number of Vehicles.

 

I still wonder how the other Limitation is unfair at -2. It holds the ship in one place. It cannot use it to do damage. It cannot use it for cargo capacity. In fact, it really doesn't do all that much that it couldn't do with its own Strength already, and can't be bought any higher. Why is this not a -2?

[PhilFleischmann]

Hmmm... A power to keep you anchored in place... I thought that was called Clinging.

 

Why pile on modifiers to fit a square peg into a round hole?

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Hmmm... A power to keep you anchored in place... I thought that was called Clinging.

 

If my memory is not playing tricks on me, an anchor can function without reaching a solid object. It has to do with the weight hanging down and physics that my brain refuses to cough up (and therefore is both difficult to explain and suspect). If that's the case, Clinging isn't technically the appropriate power, as there is nothing to cling to.

 

However, if the anchor does need to hit bottom I suppose you could buy it with an Extra Limb and lots of Non-combat Stretching.

[Fuzzy Gnome]

Originally posted by GamePhil

If my memory is not playing tricks on me, an anchor can function without reaching a solid object.

If so, that's in the realm of SFX.

If you don't buy that, how about Knockback Resistance?

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Gnome

If so, that's in the realm of SFX.

If you don't buy that, how about Knockback Resistance?

 

It is not in the realm of SFX, it is in the description of the Power itself: it speaks of sheer surfaces, walls, and other solid objects. Nowhere do I see where it speaks of clinging to liquids, any more than it would allow a flying character to maintain his position in midair. If it does, please bring it to my attention.

 

Knockback Resistance the ship probably has in abundance. It doesn't really apply to the ocean moving it about, though, any more than it would stop someone with a high Strength TK from picking the object up and moving it about.

 

In my opinion, all the attempts to do this, including STR, are attempts to fit round holes with square pegs. The one that fits the book rules most closely seems to be the Strength. If someone wants to modify the rules to better suit their perceptions, great! Then I think a modified Clinging would be very good. But in official publications, they go (by and large) by the book, and should.

[Zaratustra]

Hero System is particularly hooky on the way it handles velocity. (Just how you stop the movement of a falling rock? TK? How much? How fast does TK push an object?) My personal take on it would be a drain to movement.

[Aroooo]

Everything you wanted to know about anchors (and boating) but were afraid to ask:

 

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/7_4.htm

 

Above page details procedures for anchoring. Needless to say, your anchor needs to touch bottom to work. Dropping anchor in deep water (where it does not touch bottom) will either a) help you maintain position; or pull you off your location faster. It all depends on how the undercurrents are running.

 

If the -2 Partial Coverage lim includes the requirement that you must be relatively close to shore, then I think its worth -2.

 

Aroooo

(Always wear your life jackets)

[Fuzzy Gnome]

Originally posted by GamePhil

It is not in the realm of SFX, it is in the description of the Power itself: it speaks of sheer surfaces, walls, and other solid objects. Nowhere do I see where it speaks of clinging to liquids, any more than it would allow a flying character to maintain his position in midair. If it does, please bring it to my attention.

By SFX I meant an anchor and chain, by being what they are, will feel drag from moving water no matter what, if any, Power they represent. That said, I'm starting to think NC Stretching sounds better than STR or Clinging; the ship still needs some way to reach the bottom in order to Cling to it or use its STR. I thought of Ranged Clinging when I first saw this thread but it seems kinda wonky to me now.

[TaxiMan]

Wild thought here, why not use extra inches of Swimming, Only to Hold Position? A ship can't go very fast anyway, and non-combat movement is cheap.

[PhilFleischmann]

In game terms, The four main, most common, most important things STR gives you are:

 

HTH damage

Lifting/Carrying capacity

Throwing

Leaping

 

An anchor gives you none of these. ZERO! NONE! If it gave two or maybe even one, I'd say buy it as STR with a lim, but since it doesn't give ANY, that seems to me like a different power is needed.

 

Clinging gives you:

 

Ability to climb/perch on solid sufaces in defiance of gravity

Resistance to being moved off of your location

 

An anchor gives you one of these two things. Therefore I'd say it's a better match.

 

Yes, you might have to buy it at Range, or buy Stretching for use with the Anchor. I prefer the Range option. Let's see now:

 

Clinging (10), Ranged (+0.5), [15 active] OAF - Anchor and chain (-1), Range only applies downward* (-0.5 to the Ranged advantage only)

 

7 Real points.

 

* Or how 'bout "Dropped" TUV p30, applied only to the Ranged portion, also a -0.5 lim

 

You generally don't have to worry about hitting the target at range (unless the chain isn't long enough to reach the bottom) because the entire bottom surface is the target. All you have to do is hit it somewhere.

 

Anything else?

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

An anchor gives you none of these. ZERO! NONE! If it gave two or maybe even one, I'd say buy it as STR with a lim, but since it doesn't give ANY, that seems to me like a different power is needed.

 

Anything else?

 

Perhaps you should check the Braced maneuver, and how you break out of Telekinesis. I'd say Strength pretty well can't be said to give you zero of the benefits of an anchor.

 

Can Clinging do it too? Sure, given the proper set of assumptions. It depends to some extent on how you define current.

[Aroooo]

Keeping it simple

 

I'm of the continued opinion to Keep It Simple. I think we loose site of that sometimes with Hero - trying to find the 'best' or 'cheapest' way to build a power. If you can get past the technicalities of how something works and just work from effect, STR for holding a ship in place works just as well as any of the other valid suggestions - and it's simple.

 

And don't forget the special effect of what a power represents - in this case a rope or chain tied to a heavy object to hold a ship in place. Knowing what something is, and how it should work, a reasonable GM or player should know and be able to not abuse that in play by working through a rules loop hole.

 

And finally, I don't think you have to define everything in 'life' as a power - especially in a heroic level game. Just because a ship can be tied to a dock does not mean you need to buy Shore Lines as a power.

 

Just food for thought...

Aroooo

[PhilFleischmann]

Eh? Braced?

 

What does Bracing have to do with an anchor? Bracing gives you +2 OCV vs. RMod. Anchor keeps you in one place.

 

And don't give me another maneuver instead. A maneuver is an ACTION. An anchor operates continuously until you hoist it again. Clinging, sure enough, is a Constant Power - just what the ship's doctor ordered!

 

WRT "keeping it simple," I agree, but I believe Clinging IS simpler than using STR with lots of modifiers. My example used one Advantage and two Limitations - a total of three modifiers.

 

STR requires 2 Advantages: 0 END, Continuous; and at least two Limitations: OIF, "Partial Coverage", the latter of which is wierdly interpreted as has already been mentioned. And yes, I know the book doesn't include Continuous, but it is required, otherwise the boat has to take an action each phase it wants to use its anchor.

 

Clinging looks a lot simpler to me.

 

BTW, this isn't the first time the books have built a power that doesn't quite work as written. For example, check Simulate Death and other talents. They left out "Character cannot move, act, or perceive anything while using the power."

 

Simplest of all would be to not charge for something as mundane as an anchor. Does anyone really believe that an aircraft carrier's anchor should really cost 45 points? Does it really give 45 points worth of game effect utility? Likewise, I might not charge for internal elevators: do they really provide any more game effect utility than internal stairs? And I would have contempt for any GM who charged his players for their car's cigarette lighter.

[Dust Raven]

Phil,

 

The funny thing about Clinging, and how it helps hold you to a single spot, is that it uses STR. Says so right in the description of Clinging. Asside from that, anyone can use STR to hold onto something, that's how disarms and such work. And though I don't mean to bring up more maneuvers, take a look at the Shove and Root maneuvers from UMA. STR seems to be the perfect, stand-alone, simple solution to defining an anchor in game.

 

Now comes the really fun part. If you really want to work an anchor in game terms, you'd have to use Persistant Stretching. I don't care how much STR you have, it's not gonna hold you in place while suspended in water unless you have the inches in Swimming. What you've got to do is allow the ship to reach the bottom of the ocean and grab on. This adds additional realism, because those anchors can't always reach the bottom of the ocean.

 

Of course, I'm usually of the Keep It Simple Silly school of thought, and wouldn't spend points on an anchor any more than I"d spend points on windshield wippers, or even headlights. Some things just come with the package.

[PhilFleischmann]

"The funny thing about Clinging, and how it helps hold you to a single spot, is that it uses STR. Says so right in the description of Clinging."

 

So what? The boat already has STR. You shouldn't have to buy it again just to use it with Clinging. Just like a character doesn't have to buy his STR twice in order to use clinging.

 

And the boat or ship already has inches of Swimming, too. What's the problem?

 

I've found other problems with TUV, the more I examine it in detail:

(I suppose I should put these in separate threads, but I'll just mention them briefly here.)

 

1. I question the idea of having to pay for the entire vehicle's size. It seems to me that only the useful size (used to be called ISIZ - for "internal size" - in an old edition of Hero) should cost points. You buy a vehicle to move something, people, cargo, weapon payload, etc. The mechanism by which it moves is just a "special effect" and therefore shouldn't cost points. The example that really drove this home for me was the Airship (Zeppelin) on page 75. What would be the game difference between that and a flying ship with Size=just the useful cabin space, using a different special effect for the flying? It would cost less points, but would be more useful, since it could fit in a smaller area and isn't vulnerable to the gas igniting.

 

2. Notice the Space Yacht on page 93. Why pay 10 points for three additional Backup Life Support systems, when the same 10 points would give you three additional Full Life Support systems?

 

3. I noticed recently that Move-Thru damage is not based on actual velocity. A car with 20" ground movement and 4 SPD will do less damage with a move thru than one with 40" and 2 SPD, even though their both going 60 MPH. What do you do about this? This is a general rules problem, but the Vehicle rules seem to exacerbate it.

 

4. What about "spider-shaped" Mecha?

 

When I get a round tuitt, I'll start threads on these topics. Or you can do it yourself if you want.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

snip...

 

1. I question the idea of having to pay for the entire vehicle's size. It seems to me that only the useful size (used to be called ISIZ - for "internal size" - in an old edition of Hero) should cost points. You buy a vehicle to move something, people, cargo, weapon payload, etc. The mechanism by which it moves is just a "special effect" and therefore shouldn't cost points. The example that really drove this home for me was the Airship (Zeppelin) on page 75. What would be the game difference between that and a flying ship with Size=just the useful cabin space, using a different special effect for the flying? It would cost less points, but would be more useful, since it could fit in a smaller area and isn't vulnerable to the gas igniting.

 

snip...

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, that theory does not work well with Mecha (or tanks, fighter planes, etc.) where the 'usable' area is usually very small compared to the overall size of the vehicle. An F/A-18 would be the same 'size' as a motorcycle...

 

Aroooo

[WillRhodes]

Originally posted by TaxiMan

Wild thought here, why not use extra inches of Swimming, Only to Hold Position? A ship can't go very fast anyway, and non-combat movement is cheap.

 

Heh! This reminds me of an anecdote... The mouth of the Columbia River (near Portland, OR), has some of the most treacherous waters in any shipping lane in the world. To try to cut down on shipwrecks, the coast guard put a "lightship" out just beyond these waters. IIRC, it depended on hefty anchors AND engines ("extra inches of Swimming, Only to Hold Position") to stay on station. It worked pretty well, too, until a huge storm broke the anchor chains... The engines weren't enough to keep it from running aground several miles away.

 

Will Rhodes