Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Sorry for any difficulty reading the above post. How do you split up your quote boxes like you do?

 

I just use the [ QUOTE] [/ QUOTE] blocks to bracket off the other person's words. Just remove the blank spaces.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I would say' date=' given the commonness of EMP pulses, super-computer hackers, and magnetic manipulators that IM meets the definition of common. Our own HERO games may differ from the Marvel U.[/quote']

 

Eh, like I said, that's a matter of opinion. Like you said, it all depends on how common those things are in your universe & in the case of hackers, how proficient they tend to be. Without counting up comics, I can't say for certain that it's especially rare in the Marvel Universe, but I don't get the impression that it's common (at least in relation to Iron Man).

 

I would disagree here. And i've rarely seen him make "easy repairs". Usually he needs to return to base and get a new armor.

 

I've seen him make in-combat repairs often enough to think it doesn't follow the full Durability rules for Focus. It's not a matter of how easy it is (I'd think it would require a skill roll with modifiers for cutting down time & being distracted in combat), but that he can do it at all. Normally a focus cannot be repaired/replaced in combat all. That's what I meant by it being easier to repair than a normal Focus.

 

Also, it's rather common that IM's powers aren't knocked out but are instead reduced in power. That's not the way Foci work. Foci are either completely destroyed or not.

 

Now, I haven't done a count of how many issues Stark makes mid-combat repairs vs. having to go back to base; or how often powers are reduced rather than outright destroyed, but it seems to me that they happen more often than not. It likely varies by writer anyway.

 

But, it is a valid concern for power armor characters. If you buy your powers in a Focus, you won't be able to make in-combat repairs (out of combat field repairs possibly), and powers will be knocked out wholesale rather than just reduced to half effectiveness or intermittently cut out.

 

Which are items we see differently. You say his armor is hard to damage and easily repairable. I haven't seen this.

 

Well, I've done what I could to clarify where I'm coming from. My main point that I've wanted to get across, however, is that not all breakable things are Foci nor are all removable things. Those two criteria (along with other Focus criteria) need to be examined more closely before saying 'it's has to be a focus'.

 

True' date=' but if I can take a half move...and change form. Thats not a full phase shift. [/quote']

 

Largely irrelevant now as Steve has made an official ruling on weather you can take extra actions while waiting for OIHID powers to activate. His ruling was that you can't, so it does actually work different than the Extra Time limitation. That does present a problem for OIHID characters as they've got to take an actual Action to change forms. As IM has managed to automate this now (at least partly), you'd have to construct a power to get around this, just like having to construct a power to get around the 12 second removal of a focus.

 

My first several comments were directed towards OIHID. But if you have separate limits on a power' date=' they all must apply in full. So I can address being lost as a matter of just OIHID[/quote']

 

I'm a tad confused by your wording here, but let me rephrase my stance and we'll see if we're actually just vigorously agreeing.

 

I agree that having just OIHID does not account for the fact that the armor can be removed while the armor is being worn. That's part of the reason while Restrainable would be needed. Basically, OIHID allows you to be caught with your pants down but once they're on, they stay on. Restrainable allows others to take your pants from you (once they cut through your titanium suspenders), but you're considered to be wearing them by default. With both together, you're not wearing them by default & once they've been put on, they can be taken from you.

 

Could you clearify this? I didn't read OIHID this way.

 

My interpretation for losing OIHID powers mainly comes from the line "never seems to lose his suit for long". You can lose the suit, but you'll get it back/replace it quicker than you would with a focus. Note, that specifically, you'd have to lose it either while you're not wearing it or while in the process of putting it on. By OIHID, once it's on, it's too late.

 

Thank you for the compliment.

 

I find civil debate on the internet rare enough that I feel it should be encouraged whenever encountered.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Eh, like I said, that's a matter of opinion. Like you said, it all depends on how common those things are in your universe & in the case of hackers, how proficient they tend to be. Without counting up comics, I can't say for certain that it's especially rare in the Marvel Universe, but I don't get the impression that it's common (at least in relation to Iron Man).

 

I've seen him make in-combat repairs often enough to think it doesn't follow the full Durability rules for Focus. It's not a matter of how easy it is (I'd think it would require a skill roll with modifiers for cutting down time & being distracted in combat), but that he can do it at all. Normally a focus cannot be repaired/replaced in combat all. That's what I meant by it being easier to repair than a normal Focus.

 

Also, it's rather common that IM's powers aren't knocked out but are instead reduced in power. That's not the way Foci work. Foci are either completely destroyed or not.

 

Now, I haven't done a count of how many issues Stark makes mid-combat repairs vs. having to go back to base; or how often powers are reduced rather than outright destroyed, but it seems to me that they happen more often than not. It likely varies by writer anyway.

 

This may vary from writer to writer, but I can recall more instances of the armor being destroyed/irrepairably damaged, than his making field repairs. Maybe i'll throw this one by Busiek (who once listed every instance, yes EVERY, of someone shooting/stabing at Thor to determine if he was bullet proof).

 

The reduced in powers comment is a good point. As a GM I consider it a minor point to adjust the works/don't works element of Focus since there is no point difference between breakable or unbreakable.

 

But, it is a valid concern for power armor characters. If you buy your powers in a Focus, you won't be able to make in-combat repairs (out of combat field repairs possibly), and powers will be knocked out wholesale rather than just reduced to half effectiveness or intermittently cut out.

 

Continuing from above, with no point change for breakable/unbreakable, what is wrong with repairs if following a consistant routine. What is the difference between having the spare suit shipped from the base and having to make an Engineering roll at -6 and expend 10 minutes of time?

 

Well, I've done what I could to clarify where I'm coming from. My main point that I've wanted to get across, however, is that not all breakable things are Foci nor are all removable things. Those two criteria (along with other Focus criteria) need to be examined more closely before saying 'it's has to be a focus'.

 

True, and this is why I brought up campaign setting. I think ultimately setting may be the ultimate factor in deciding between OIHID and OIF. We could both run campaigns in the Marvel Universe, DCU, or Champions Universe but have entirely different settings.

 

Largely irrelevant now as Steve has made an official ruling on weather you can take extra actions while waiting for OIHID powers to activate. His ruling was that you can't, so it does actually work different than the Extra Time limitation. That does present a problem for OIHID characters as they've got to take an actual Action to change forms. As IM has managed to automate this now (at least partly), you'd have to construct a power to get around this, just like having to construct a power to get around the 12 second removal of a focus.

 

Didn't know that. Thanks for the update. But as I think, it depends on what constitutes struggling, too. Stark can move with all armor systems off-line. Not that this changes your point since we've seen him completely KO'd and people have trouble opening the armor.

 

I'm a tad confused by your wording here, but let me rephrase my stance and we'll see if we're actually just vigorously agreeing.

 

I agree that having just OIHID does not account for the fact that the armor can be removed while the armor is being worn. That's part of the reason while Restrainable would be needed. Basically, OIHID allows you to be caught with your pants down but once they're on, they stay on. Restrainable allows others to take your pants from you (once they cut through your titanium suspenders), but you're considered to be wearing them by default. With both together, you're not wearing them by default & once they've been put on, they can be taken from you.

 

Where I see the problem is that OIHID does not require an item to gain that form unless you ALWAYS have access to it.

 

Let me expand: Iron Man must travel to whereever his armor is (briefcase, car, etc) open the package and put on the armor. We've seen this happen very quickly with some versions of the armor but he can easily be separated from the armor. Contrast with the Credit Card Soldier's power armor that could be essentially summoned from little cards they carried.

 

My interpretation for losing OIHID powers mainly comes from the line "never seems to lose his suit for long". You can lose the suit, but you'll get it back/replace it quicker than you would with a focus. Note, that specifically, you'd have to lose it either while you're not wearing it or while in the process of putting it on. By OIHID, once it's on, it's too late.

 

This is where this becomes subjective. It is a question of how often you think the armor is lost.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

The reduced in powers comment is a good point. As a GM I consider it a minor point to adjust the works/don't works element of Focus since there is no point difference between breakable or unbreakable.

 

Continuing from above, with no point change for breakable/unbreakable, what is wrong with repairs if following a consistant routine. What is the difference between having the spare suit shipped from the base and having to make an Engineering roll at -6 and expend 10 minutes of time?

 

Personally, I have no problem with it. It was someone else earlier in the thread that ruled out all house rules in this discussion. If one does not allow OIHID to be breakable based on special effect as a house rule, then one can't replace destroyed with suppressed for focus damaging rules or allow for quick in-combat repairs to be made.

 

Where I see the problem is that OIHID does not require an item to gain that form unless you ALWAYS have access to it.

 

Let me expand: Iron Man must travel to whereever his armor is (briefcase, car, etc) open the package and put on the armor. We've seen this happen very quickly with some versions of the armor but he can easily be separated from the armor. Contrast with the Credit Card Soldier's power armor that could be essentially summoned from little cards they carried.

 

I don't think 'always' is required. There's nothing in the wording of OIHID that suggests that their example power armor character would always have his armor with him. OIHID, like most Limitations, primarily defines what your character can't do. OIHID requires that it take at least a Full Phase Action to change forms and that there's a way of preventing that change. This is a set up of your minimum difficulties. It places no direct maximum on how difficult the change is. In fact, it specifically states that their example power armor character probably takes longer than a Full Phase to change forms. The fact that Tony's armor may be in the trunk of his car rather than immediately on hand seems of sufficiently similar inconvenience (really it's a matter of how often the armor is inaccessible; and its exceptionally rare for it to be completely inaccessible; i.e. can't be gotten to during the current combat).

 

As for CSS, is it a Full Phase Action to summon the armor? Is it reasonably easy to separate him from his cards (say as easy as slapping your hand over Billy Batson's mouth to prevent his saying 'Shazam')? If the answer is 'no' to both those questions then OIHID doesn't apply.

 

For what it's worth, IM actually fails the Full Phase Action to activate test these days. I know it used to apply to him, but apparently he's bought it off since the days of the silver & red armor.

 

This is where this becomes subjective. It is a question of how often you think the armor is lost.

 

Limitations are almost always in some way or another subjective. That's why these boards are so active. Place would become pretty freakin' boring if there weren't room for interpretation within the rules.

 

Of course, the real difficulty is that we're trying to take a comic book character with nearly 40 years of history and wedge it into a couple of limitations. I really don't think there's a perfect fit for IM because there's so much variability from writer to writer. That's true of any comic book character. The only way we'd have a chance of truly resolving this would be to pick a specific area of IM along with one of the more consistent writers and base our write-up on that. Even then, I'm sure someone could come up with a nit we haven't picked.

 

However, I think we've managed to bring the majority of the conflicting issues to light:

 

Focus requires the following to be a valid focus:

1) Be in some way detectable.

2) Be removable within 12 seconds out of combat

3) Be damageable in some way

3A) Individual powers are damaged on an all-or-nothing basis, not by degrees

3B) Power Frameworks are all one power for these purposes.

3C) Repairs require significant time & effort to complete (i.e. can't be done while someone's trying to pound your head in)

4) The other three components of Focus (Mobility, Expendability and Applicability) are sufficiently broad as to not likely make much difference

 

OIHID requires the following to be valid:

1) Take at least a Full Phase Action to change forms during which no other Actions may be taken

2) Changing forms must be in some way preventable and while it doesn't specify easily, by the examples it does seem implied.

 

Restrainable has different requirements depending on level

1) Full Restrainable requires that a power can be Grabbed and Entangled in order to prevent that power from working

2) Lesser Restrainable requires that a power be disabled and/or removed by some means more rare than a Grab or Entangle (including combat damage, special effects interactions and complex removal processes like surgery) but still be targettable separate from the character (with a -2OCV mod at best)

 

Ultimately IM fails the Focus test (2 & 3) and the OIHID test. (1). Restrainable seems to be the only one that applies to IM strictly by the book.

 

So, I think we've managed to cover all the ground there is to cover on this issue. Unless someone has something new to add, I'll probably be retiring from this thread. I'll keep an eye on it in case fresh territory does get discovered, though.

 

Later & good debating.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Personally, I have no problem with it. It was someone else earlier in the thread that ruled out all house rules in this discussion. If one does not allow OIHID to be breakable based on special effect as a house rule, then one can't replace destroyed with suppressed for focus damaging rules or allow for quick in-combat repairs to be made.

 

I think that flexibility of how damaged is within the scope of the focus rule while breakable OIHID is a change/addition to the rule.

 

As for CSS, is it a Full Phase Action to summon the armor? Is it reasonably easy to separate him from his cards (say as easy as slapping your hand over Billy Batson's mouth to prevent his saying 'Shazam')? If the answer is 'no' to both those questions then OIHID doesn't apply.

The cards are worn in a fancy belt that is essentially OAF while they are out of armor. I would say from the issues i've seen that it is a full phase to summon the armor.

 

Of course, the real difficulty is that we're trying to take a comic book character with nearly 40 years of history and wedge it into a couple of limitations.

 

This is why any comic to hero conversions I do include a "version" line. So I know what version of the character any particular write-up is.

 

However, I think we've managed to bring the majority of the conflicting issues to light:

 

Focus requires the following to be a valid focus:

1) Be in some way detectable.

2) Be removable within 12 seconds out of combat

3) Be damageable in some way

3A) Individual powers are damaged on an all-or-nothing basis, not by degrees

3B) Power Frameworks are all one power for these purposes.

3C) Repairs require significant time & effort to complete (i.e. can't be done while someone's trying to pound your head in)

4) The other three components of Focus (Mobility, Expendability and Applicability) are sufficiently broad as to not likely make much difference

 

OIHID requires the following to be valid:

1) Take at least a Full Phase Action to change forms during which no other Actions may be taken

2) Changing forms must be in some way preventable and while it doesn't specify easily, by the examples it does seem implied.

 

Restrainable has different requirements depending on level

1) Full Restrainable requires that a power can be Grabbed and Entangled in order to prevent that power from working

2) Lesser Restrainable requires that a power be disabled and/or removed by some means more rare than a Grab or Entangle (including combat damage, special effects interactions and complex removal processes like surgery) but still be targettable separate from the character (with a -2OCV mod at best)

 

Ultimately IM fails the Focus test (2 & 3) and the OIHID test. (1). Restrainable seems to be the only one that applies to IM strictly by the book.

 

sounds about right.

 

So, I think we've managed to cover all the ground there is to cover on this issue. Unless someone has something new to add, I'll probably be retiring from this thread. I'll keep an eye on it in case fresh territory does get discovered, though.

 

Later & good debating.

 

I think we have. This is probably a good one for the archives. This issue is fairly well settled.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

May I present this post right here as a possible solution?

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Unless the game in question is a solo, I don't think examples from Iron Man's own comic are appropriate. The vast majority of campaigns are analogous to the Avengers, or some other team book. In the Avengers I can't recall a single example of IM not having his armour when he needs it, which would mean it isn't a limitation at all.

 

I have to admit though I can think of an occasion when it was damaged in Avengers #1 Vol 1. A blow from the Incredible Hulk disables his propulsion battery and he has to repair it. Still that was the crappy old gold armour, which probably got damaged all the time. I think what happened is that IM bought off his Focus limitation.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I'm baaaack!

 

First of all, I'm not against all house rules. I am against confusing two or three limitations to the degree that I believe is suggested by using Restrainable as a poor man's focus on power armor.

 

Restrainable, if you read the terminology, cyberware is mentioned as the example because it requires SURGERY to remove or it can be INTERFERED with through various radiations. That doesn't sound like the typical suit of power armor to me. It really doesn't sound like Iron Man's armor. It doesn't even sound like an example meant to be used in a game where Iron Man style armor exists. Now, you could HAVE a character whose power armor should be bought OIHID with Restrainable but it isn't the typical power armor character. Case in point: All of them. Look at the published power armor characters and bring up how many are built OIHID, Restrainable. After all, we're trying to interpret the meaning of Restrainable. If Restrainable should be broadly interpreted then why don't we see that interpretation in the published materials?

 

Restrainable used to "replace" a focus is given two examples, cyberware and claws, which are described as being part of the character requiring surgery or a lengthy and difficult procedure or Skill Rolls to take apart. I think there is some room beyond 12 seconds where focus is more appropriate than a limitation that is meant to cover surgery.

 

On the argument that OIHID should be the way power armor is built if a character's armor hasn't been taken... often enough? How often do you have to lose your armor for it to be a focus?

 

(Tangent: I am not one of the guys who follows the activation roll comparison for how often a -1/4 or -1/2 limitation should come up in game.)

 

On the Iron Man example, the main arguments against his armor being an OIF, even though he is the principle inspiration, I'll bet, for OIF, is that it can't be removed in 12 seconds when he's down or that he never loses his armor. OIHID certainly doesn't cover that. The OIHID doesn't really adequately cover for focus limitations. On the 12 seconds thing, it kills me that people arguing for OIHID want to hand wave stories of Stark's armor complications which sure fit for an OIF but will bring up stories of Stark being stuck in malfunctioning armor and others not being able to take the armor apart... in 12 seconds. I would argue that SOME people who take the Iron Man armor down and ko Stark CAN take the armor apart in 12 seconds.

[Resartus]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Just a side note. In the Ultimates, Marvel's modern day take on the Avengers, the Hulk takes pieces of Iron Man's armor off in the *middle* of a fight. So I guess that the Ultimate Iron Man armor is actually an OAF if your strength is high enough!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Just a side note. In the Ultimates' date=' Marvel's modern day take on the Avengers, the Hulk takes pieces of Iron Man's armor off in the *middle* of a fight. So I guess that the Ultimate Iron Man armor is actually an OAF if your strength is high enough! [/quote']

 

I'd say it's OIF and the scene is a SFX for the Hulk attacking the armor.

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

On the 12 seconds thing, it kills me that people arguing for OIHID want to hand wave stories of Stark's armor complications which sure fit for an OIF but will bring up stories of Stark being stuck in malfunctioning armor and others not being able to take the armor apart... in 12 seconds. I would argue that SOME people who take the Iron Man armor down and ko Stark CAN take the armor apart in 12 seconds.

 

It seems reasonable,that, buying powered armor as OIF, then each individual construct of the armor has OIF. Therefore, one could say that each individual construct is its own part of a big OIF, so each individual power could probably be removed in 12 seconds.

 

Or I could just use my Dispel Technology and break it.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It seems reasonable,that, buying powered armor as OIF, then each individual construct of the armor has OIF. Therefore, one could say that each individual construct is its own part of a big OIF, so each individual power could probably be removed in 12 seconds.

 

Or I could just use my Dispel Technology and break it.

Sounds like a GM call to me.

 

I just think it's interesting that the advocated OIHID/Restrainable construct is so broad in interpretation that, if your armor can't be taken off in 12 seconds, this is the way to go according to the advocates - Yet, I haven't come across a single example of such a construct in the published books with plenty of power armor themed characters to choose from. I've seen examples of power armor bought as an OIF, no limitation at all, and as a vehicle - but not a single OIHID, Restrainable.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

IIRC, the twelve-second rule doesn't mean you have to completely remove or disassemble the armor. It just means you can negate the power it provides in 12 seconds. This may involve something simple like removing the battery pack or taking off the helmet. If the power source or command module is removed, the armor becomes useless. (I don't know if this actually applies to Iron Man's armor specifically, but it's a reasonable justification in game terms.)

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I've seen examples of power armor bought as an OIF' date=' no limitation at all, and as a vehicle - but not a single OIHID, Restrainable.[/quote']

 

Well, putting both limitations on one power is abusive. You don't put OIF and OAF on the same power, nor Only In Hero ID and OIF. You just don't. A player who tried that in my game would get a stern look, with instructions to pick the limitation that most closely approximates how the character's power works and to stop trying to "play" the system. The game's power mechanics only approximate how the power actually works. Players who try to twist and tweak and combine and deconstruct powers and limitations in a vain attempt to exactly replicate a particular character's powers are completely off base.

 

The power mechanics are only there to make GMing the power's effects easier, and to provide a tool to help evaluate the relative usefulness of powers for game-balance reasons. They can not and should not be used to try and perfectly describe a character's powers in terms of game mechanics: not only is that a fruitless exercise, but a player who focuses on that is putting the cart before the horse. The important thing is the character: the game mechanics are just a convenience for describing that character and resolving conflicts. In themselves, the game mechanics are not important.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Well' date=' putting both limitations on one power is abusive. You don't put OIF and OAF on the same power, nor Only In Hero ID and OIF. You just don't. A player who tried that in my game would get a stern look, with instructions to pick the limitation that most closely approximates how the character's power works and to stop trying to "play" the system. The game's power mechanics only [i']approximate[/i] how the power actually works. Players who try to twist and tweak and combine and deconstruct powers and limitations in a vain attempt to exactly replicate a particular character's powers are completely off base.

 

The power mechanics are only there to make GMing the power's effects easier, and to provide a tool to help evaluate the relative usefulness of powers for game-balance reasons. They can not and should not be used to try and perfectly describe a character's powers in terms of game mechanics: not only is that a fruitless exercise, but a player who focuses on that is putting the cart before the horse. The important thing is the character: the game mechanics are just a convenience for describing that character and resolving conflicts. In themselves, the game mechanics are not important.

Yeah, in campaign we take small liberties with the limitations descriptions. We certainly wouldn't sweat 12 seconds here or there concerning an OIF. Of course, Phil made a good point about that anyway.

[Vondy]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

If OHID power armor can be damaged or stolen then the overall value of the limitation has to go up - as other applications of OHID don't necessarily have that drawback. Perhaps an additional - 1/4 would be fair, which is effectively the same as OIF.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I'm not sure when this "12 second rule" got invented, but I suppose it has something to do with the rule that an Inaccessible Focus can be removed by someone taking 1 turn out of combat to accomplish specifically that?

 

That asside, technically an OIHID, Restrainable Power isn't abusive. These Limitations aren't mutually exclusive (the way either are with focus). In total, they'd be worth, at most, -3/4. Consider that the Power first and foremost can only be used in one ID. We assume that the time a character with such a limited Power would actually be limited by it. Now consider than even when in the appropriate ID, that power can be easily restrained. This goes above and beyond what OIHID can do, and should be worth a greater Limitation. You should come to the same conclusion if you work at it the other way around (you have an easily restrained power that you also can't use in nomral ID).

 

You can still compair it to OIF if you'd like. OIF is a -1/2. It isn't restricted by ID, per se, but if you haven't got it, you can't use it. It can also be taken away in a short amount of time (out of combat, say... after you've been knocked out). Unlike the OIHID+Restrainable construct, the OIF can't be negated in combat (or if you allow it to, it still takes a full turn instead of a normal 1/2 phase attack).

 

I say it's valid and not in the least abusive.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It seems reasonable,that, buying powered armor as OIF, then each individual construct of the armor has OIF. Therefore, one could say that each individual construct is its own part of a big OIF, so each individual power could probably be removed in 12 seconds.

 

Buying each power individually with OIF is certainly valid. I'm not sure what special effect would justify it & if you're buying your powers that way just to get around the 12-second rule, that's pure cheese.

 

In any case, there're a couple things to keep in mind with this:

 

If the powers are in a framework, and that framework's Pool or Control has OIF applied to it, the entire framework can be negated in 1 turn out of combat.

 

All of the powered armor's powers would generally include the Armor power as well. If the Armor power is bought OIF along with the rest of it, the only real way to negate it is to take it off the wearer (or the majority of it anyway). So the body armor portion of it is going to have to have some sort of quick-release mechanism.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Well, I said I was done until new ground was covered, but it seems parts of my argument are being mis-represented, so I just want to clairify.

 

Restrainable' date=' if you read the terminology, cyberware is mentioned as the example because it requires SURGERY to remove or it can be INTERFERED with through various radiations. That doesn't sound like the typical suit of power armor to me. It really doesn't sound like Iron Man's armor. [b']It doesn't even sound like an example meant to be used in a game where Iron Man style armor exists. [/b]Now, you could HAVE a character whose power armor should be bought OIHID with Restrainable but it isn't the typical power armor character.

 

At this point, we're no longer debating rules as I've already stated that the removal process needs to be equally as complicated as surgery ("complex removal process like surgery"). What we're debating is weather or not the removal process of Iron Man's armor (for anyone other than the armor's wearer or inventor) is that complex. That is purely individual interpretation of the character. You'll have to provide an example that shows his armor is so easy to remove that it doesn't take hours & specialized skill uses before you'll convince me that it's not a complex process.

 

Restrainable used to "replace" a focus is given two examples' date=' cyberware and claws, which are described as being part of the character requiring surgery or a lengthy and difficult procedure or Skill Rolls to take apart. I think there is some room beyond 12 seconds where focus is more appropriate than a limitation that is meant to cover surgery. [/quote']

 

Allowing a Focus that can be removed in more than a Turn out of combat is a GM call & a house rule. Not a big deal.

 

On the argument that OIHID should be the way power armor is built if a character's armor hasn't been taken... often enough? How often do you have to lose your armor for it to be a focus?

 

(Tangent: I am not one of the guys who follows the activation roll comparison for how often a -1/4 or -1/2 limitation should come up in game.)

 

It's more than just losing the item that qualifies it for being a focus. It also has to be detectable in some way & damageable in at least one unique way or in a way compatible with the Focus Durability rules. The Accessibility rules adequately cover how often a Focus can be lost (as in taken away from the character).

 

On the Iron Man example' date=' the main arguments against his armor being an OIF, even though he is the principle inspiration, I'll bet, for OIF, is that it can't be removed in 12 seconds when he's down or that he never loses his armor. OIHID certainly doesn't cover that. The OIHID doesn't really adequately cover for focus limitations. On the 12 seconds thing, it kills me that people arguing for OIHID want to hand wave stories of Stark's armor complications which sure fit for an OIF but will bring up stories of Stark being stuck in malfunctioning armor and others not being able to take the armor apart... in 12 seconds. I would argue that SOME people who take the Iron Man armor down and ko Stark CAN take the armor apart in 12 seconds.[/quote']

 

You left out the argument that the Focus damage rules don't adequately model the way the IM armor actually gets damaged. I've mentioned that several times in this thread.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I'm not sure when this "12 second rule" got invented, but I suppose it has something to do with the rule that an Inaccessible Focus can be removed by someone taking 1 turn out of combat to accomplish specifically that?

 

That asside, technically an OIHID, Restrainable Power isn't abusive. These Limitations aren't mutually exclusive (the way either are with focus). In total, they'd be worth, at most, -3/4. Consider that the Power first and foremost can only be used in one ID. We assume that the time a character with such a limited Power would actually be limited by it. Now consider than even when in the appropriate ID, that power can be easily restrained. This goes above and beyond what OIHID can do, and should be worth a greater Limitation. You should come to the same conclusion if you work at it the other way around (you have an easily restrained power that you also can't use in nomral ID).

 

You can still compair it to OIF if you'd like. OIF is a -1/2. It isn't restricted by ID, per se, but if you haven't got it, you can't use it. It can also be taken away in a short amount of time (out of combat, say... after you've been knocked out). Unlike the OIHID+Restrainable construct, the OIF can't be negated in combat (or if you allow it to, it still takes a full turn instead of a normal 1/2 phase attack).

 

I say it's valid and not in the least abusive.

But is it the best way to build a typical suit of power armor. That is what some were claiming.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Buying each power individually with OIF is certainly valid. I'm not sure what special effect would justify it & if you're buying your powers that way just to get around the 12-second rule, that's pure cheese.

 

In any case, there're a couple things to keep in mind with this:

 

If the powers are in a framework, and that framework's Pool or Control has OIF applied to it, the entire framework can be negated in 1 turn out of combat.

 

All of the powered armor's powers would generally include the Armor power as well. If the Armor power is bought OIF along with the rest of it, the only real way to negate it is to take it off the wearer (or the majority of it anyway). So the body armor portion of it is going to have to have some sort of quick-release mechanism.

I believe Fenixcrest was talking about how to use foci to model published characters, not how to cheese out.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Well' date=' I said I was done until new ground was covered, but it seems parts of my argument are being mis-represented, so I just want to clairify.[/quote']Please do.

 

At this point' date=' we're no longer debating rules as I've already stated that the removal process needs to be equally as complicated as surgery ("complex removal process like surgery"). What we're debating is weather or not the removal process of Iron Man's armor (for anyone other than the armor's wearer or inventor) is that complex. That is purely individual interpretation of the character. You'll have to provide an example that shows his armor is so easy to remove that it doesn't take hours & specialized skill uses before you'll convince me that it's not a complex process.[/quote'] That's going to be hard to do. I haven't read Iron Man in a long time. There was an earlier poster who did say that Iron Man's armor had been taken from him. I will say this. Iron Man's armor obviously was a focus back in the 80s or Rhodes wouldn't have been able to use it. Wolverine's claws or ?'s Cybernetic Implants may be restrainable in the sense that you can remove them after surgery but they can't be used by someone else.

 

Allowing a Focus that can be removed in more than a Turn out of combat is a GM call & a house rule. Not a big deal.

Yep, not a big deal. And I certainly wouldn't use the 12 second issue to stop me from designing something as a focus that appeared in a comic book that walks and quacks like a focus.

 

 

 

It's more than just losing the item that qualifies it for being a focus. It also has to be detectable in some way & damageable in at least one unique way or in a way compatible with the Focus Durability rules. The Accessibility rules adequately cover how often a Focus can be lost (as in taken away from the character).

Power Armor generally is detectable and damageable in more than a unique way. Remember what I was debating against was the idea that OIHID Restrainable was somehow a superior explanation for power armor. I have argued that it could be used but that it isn't the way to go for most power armor, much less Iron Man's.

 

 

You left out the argument that the Focus damage rules don't adequately model the way the IM armor actually gets damaged. I've mentioned that several times in this thread.

And Restrainable does? I don't think so. I think you're taking a comic book character and setting conditions no limitation in the book will perfectly fit because writer's have more of a fiat than do gm's. Look it at this way: If you were to ask a writer would it be possible to write a story about Iron Man where someone takes his armor? I think the answer would by yes. And I doubt the writer would feel it would take surgery or a really long time to do it... if the villain was that capable of overwhelming Iron Man.

 

Would it be possible to write a story about Iron Man where he can't put his armor on because it's across town? I think the answer would be yes. OIHID won't work for this because the difficulty in transforming Identities isn't supposed to take that long.

 

It's that simple. Your standard is what has been shown in the comic books. My standard is what could be shown. According to your standard, if Iron Man's armor hasn't been taken from him = Iron Man's armor cannot be taken from him. Let me show you the flaw in that. Hawkey hasn't been shot to death by an elephant gun = Hawkeye cannot be shot to death by an elephant gun.

 

Finally, there still hasn't been anyone to show me all the OIHID Restrainable power armor among the published characters which would demonstrate a broad interpretation of restrainable is the way to go.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

That's going to be hard to do. I haven't read Iron Man in a long time. There was an earlier poster who did say that Iron Man's armor had been taken from him. I will say this. Iron Man's armor obviously was a focus back in the 80s or Rhodes wouldn't have been able to use it. Wolverine's claws or ?'s Cybernetic Implants may be restrainable in the sense that you can remove them after surgery but they can't be used by someone else.

 

Now that last sentence is an interesting argument. However, if the cybernetic implants were surgically attached to someone else, that other person could use them. Hardly an easy process, but one that does fit the example used in the book even if it’s not explicitly stated. That’s purely a GM call and hardly outside the realm of reason or against the rules.

 

So, how does this relate to IM? Well, again, it’s a matter of character interpretation. Just how easy is it to take control of IM’s armor? Does it require reprogramming/overriding/circumventing the armor’s security systems? If so, it’s something that would take hours & specialized skills. In other words, it may well be as complex a process as surgery.

 

Yep' date=' not a big deal. And I certainly wouldn't use the 12 second issue to stop me from designing something as a focus that appeared in a comic book that walks and quacks like a focus. [/quote']

 

In your interpretation. Again, I’ll remind you that (from the examples in the comics) removing IM’s armor is a far more complex task than the removal of an Inaccessible Focus. It’s a matter of degree. If it’s something that would take hours & specialized skills to remove, that doesn’t come close to meeting the Accessibility requirements of Focus in my opinion.

 

Power Armor generally is detectable and damageable in more than a unique way. Remember what I was debating against was the idea that OIHID Restrainable was somehow a superior explanation for power armor. I have argued that it could be used but that it isn't the way to go for most power armor' date=' much less Iron Man's. [/quote']

 

And I’ve never argued that it was automatically a superior way to build power armor. That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis as to if it will be the superior build. Heck, I’ve never even argued that it’s the case for most power armor. I’ve restricted my arguments to Iron Man.

 

In general terms, I’ve simply argued against the idea that something that is damageable is automatically a Focus or something that can be taken away is automatically a focus. You have to look at all the factors involved in Focus before determining if something qualifies as a Focus. I’ve stated this more than once in this thread; most recently in post 77.

 

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that I (or anyone else) thinks that OIF is always (or most often) the inferior build for powered armor.

 

And Restrainable does? I don't think so.

 

Why not? The example under Restrainable specifically states that the power in question can be damaged.

 

I think you're taking a comic book character and setting conditions no limitation in the book will perfectly fit because writer's have more of a fiat than do gm's. Look it at this way: If you were to ask a writer would it be possible to write a story about Iron Man where someone takes his armor? I think the answer would by yes. And I doubt the writer would feel it would take surgery or a really long time to do it... if the villain was that capable of overwhelming Iron Man.

 

We can’t know that as it’s never been shown (that I know of). You’re assuming it can be done that easily. I’m not. Since we can’t read the writer’s mind, we can’t effectively go by what’s not shown.

 

Besides that, back in post 79, I addressed the fact that this may be well-nigh irresolvable because of varied writers & inconsistencies within comic books in general, much less Iron Man specifically. The only way to come up with something anywhere close to a write-up a majority of people would agree on would be to pick a specific writer that showed considerable consistency and base our interpretation on what was shown by that writer.

 

Would it be possible to write a story about Iron Man where he can't put his armor on because it's across town? I think the answer would be yes. OIHID won't work for this because the difficulty in transforming Identities isn't supposed to take that long.

 

What part of OIHID says that it’s impossible for the ID to be inaccessible longer than 30 minutes (an estimate of how long it might take to get across town)? Is there a time limit on how long a gag may be placed over someone’s mouth to prevent his saying the magic word that turns him into Captain Stupendous? Now, I’d agree that OIHID shouldn’t leave a heroic ID inaccessible longer than an entire ‘adventure’ unless recovering the ID is going to be the focus of that ‘adventure’. Anything less seems fairly reasonable (depending also upon frequency). This is another idea that I covered in post 79.

 

Besides which, I’ve already shown how Iron Man violates OIHID because it takes him less than a Full Phase Action to change into the armor (again in post 77).

 

It's that simple. Your standard is what has been shown in the comic books. My standard is what could be shown. According to your standard' date=' if Iron Man's armor hasn't been taken from him = Iron Man's armor cannot be taken from him. Let me show you the flaw in that. Hawkey hasn't been shot to death by an elephant gun = Hawkeye cannot be shot to death by an elephant gun. [/quote']

 

It’s been shown that Hawkeye can be wounded by bullets and established that he is mortal (as much as most major comic book characters are anyway). It’s fairly reasonable to extrapolate that elephant guns pose a mortal threat to him. It has been shown that taking way Iron Man’s armor is nowhere near as easy as it is to remove an Inaccessible Focus.

 

If we go by your standard: it’s never been shown that the Hulk could be killed by exposure to mint-apple jelly, but it could be shown. Any position taken to a ridiculously extreme example becomes ridiculous. I won’t do it to you if you don’t to it to me.

 

Finally' date=' there still hasn't been anyone to show me all the OIHID Restrainable power armor among the published characters which would demonstrate a broad interpretation of restrainable is the way to go.[/b']

 

I would worry about this, except for two things:

1. I never claimed that OIHID + Restrainable is always (or even most often) a better choice than OIF for power armor. I’ve simply pointed out that if your power armor is OIF, that means that:

1A) Your power armor will be removable in 12 seconds (1 turn) out of combat.

1B) Your power armor’s powers will be completely destroyed every time your armor’s DEF is breached. They will not be reduced, forced to work only intermittently or cut out for a short time and then come back on. They will be destroyed. Not only that, but Frameworks count as a single power for these purposes.

1C) You will not be able to make repairs in combat. You will need access to equipment, the proper skills & time to effect repairs.

[All of the above are violated by the Iron Man example many times.]

2. My interpretation of restrainable is exactly by the book and I fail to see how you can claim that it’s in any way “broadâ€.

 

I went over the requirements for all of the limitations under discussion (Focus, OIHID and Restrainable) back in post 79. Do you refute any of that? If not, then our entire dissagreement is not based upon game mechanics, but rather upon our individual interpretation of the Iron Man character & I've already covered (in that same message) how impossible that is to resolve.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Now that last sentence is an interesting argument. However' date=' if the cybernetic implants were surgically attached to someone else, that other person could use them. Hardly an easy process, but one that does fit the example used in the book even if it’s not explicitly stated. That’s purely a GM call and hardly outside the realm of reason or against the rules. [/quote']Here is the problem with that, the GM can do whatever he needs to do to tell a good story. Here's where it becomes meaningful - if, in the course of a scenario, a player character removed the cybernetic gear from a bad guy, didn't have character points to spend, but had a contact with a superscientist/doctor - would you let the character get all cybered up? How would you explain him losing something surgically attached to him?

 

So' date=' how does this relate to IM? Well, again, it’s a matter of character interpretation. Just how easy is it to take control of IM’s armor? Does it require reprogramming/overriding/circumventing the armor’s security systems? If so, it’s something that would take hours & specialized skills. In other words, it may well be as complex a process as surgery.[/quote'] Somehow, I doubt it is.

 

In your interpretation. Again' date=' I’ll remind you that (from the examples in the comics) removing IM’s armor is a [b']far[/b] more complex task than the removal of an Inaccessible Focus. It’s a matter of degree. If it’s something that would take hours & specialized skills to remove, that doesn’t come close to meeting the Accessibility requirements of Focus in my opinion.

I'm not so sure it takes hours and specialized skills. I haven't heard any examples one way or the other. I have heard assumptions and one poster claimed he had seen someone take Iron Man's armor from him. Here's another problem with your restrainable argument - if it's so hard to take off it should be hard to put back on. How fast does Tony Stark put his armor on?

 

And I’ve never argued that it was automatically a superior way to build power armor. That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis as to if it will be the superior build. Heck' date=' I’ve never even argued that it’s the case for [b']most[/b] power armor. I’ve restricted my arguments to Iron Man.

I haven't, nor have other posters. See the problem.

 

In general terms' date=' I’ve simply argued against the idea that something that is damageable is automatically a Focus or something that can be taken away is automatically a focus. You have to look at [b']all[/b] the factors involved in Focus before determining if something qualifies as a Focus. I’ve stated this more than once in this thread; most recently in post 77.

Something that can be taken away and then taken back and put on in seconds is NOT restrainable.

 

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that I (or anyone else) thinks that OIF is always (or most often) the inferior build for powered armor.

Read some of the earlier posts from those who refuse to EVER let a player use OIF for power armor.

 

Why not? The example under Restrainable specifically states that the power in question can be damaged.

As you yourself have said there is more to an OIF than damage, and power armor generally is better described using OIF when you consider those other issues.

 

We can’t know that as it’s never been shown (that I know of). You’re assuming it can be done that easily. I’m not. Since we can’t read the writer’s mind' date=' we can’t effectively go by what’s not shown.[/quote']I have read stories of Tony Stark being very worried about someone getting his armor. That's telling to me.

 

Besides that' date=' back in post 79, I addressed the fact that this may be well-nigh irresolvable because of varied writers & inconsistencies within comic books in general, much less Iron Man specifically. The only way to come up with something anywhere close to a write-up a majority of people would agree on would be to pick a specific writer that showed considerable consistency and base our interpretation on what was shown by that writer.

If you look over the 30+years Iron Man has been around, at least the majority of the time someone would have to say that the armor COULD be taken by someone and Tony COULD use it fairly quickly if he retrieved it.

 

 

 

What part of OIHID says that it’s impossible for the ID to be inaccessible longer than 30 minutes (an estimate of how long it might take to get across town)? Is there a time limit on how long a gag may be placed over someone’s mouth to prevent his saying the magic word that turns him into Captain Stupendous? Now' date=' I’d agree that OIHID shouldn’t leave a heroic ID inaccessible longer than an entire ‘adventure’ unless recovering the ID is going to be the focus of that ‘adventure’. Anything less seems fairly reasonable (depending also upon frequency). This is another idea that I covered in post 79.

But the transformation in OIHID is stopped by some sort of control - not by removing an object o' power.

 

Besides which' date=' I’ve already shown how Iron Man violates OIHID because it takes him less than a Full Phase Action to change into the armor (again in post 77).

Okay.

 

It’s been shown that Hawkeye can be wounded by bullets and established that he is mortal (as much as most major comic book characters are anyway). It’s fairly reasonable to extrapolate that elephant guns pose a mortal threat to him. It has been shown that taking way Iron Man’s armor is nowhere near as easy as it is to remove an Inaccessible Focus.

Has it? I've played a number of games with players whose characters are in OIF power armor. They never lost their armor. They had trouble with malfunctions' date=' people attacking the armor, or not having their armor in a place that made it easy to change for their secret identity - [b']but they never had their armor taken from them.[/b] They played effectively and avoided that possiblity - but it was still a possibility.

 

If we go by your standard: it’s never been shown that the Hulk could be killed by exposure to mint-apple jelly' date=' but it could be shown. [b']Any[/b] position taken to a ridiculously extreme example becomes ridiculous. I won’t do it to you if you don’t to it to me.

The Hulk can suffocate on mint-apple jelly as easily as ocean water if the amount is sufficient. Your position is that extreme. The idea that Tony Stark's armor can't be taken away from him because it hasn't been taken away from him just doesn't make sense, especially when that was a big concern of his in many of the stories I read about him some time ago.

 

I would worry about this, except for two things:

1. I never claimed that OIHID + Restrainable is always (or even most often) a better choice than OIF for power armor. I’ve simply pointed out that if your power armor is OIF, that means that:

1A) Your power armor will be removable in 12 seconds (1 turn) out of combat.

1B) Your power armor’s powers will be completely destroyed every time your armor’s DEF is breached. They will not be reduced, forced to work only intermittently or cut out for a short time and then come back on. They will be destroyed. Not only that, but Frameworks count as a single power for these purposes.

1C) You will not be able to make repairs in combat. You will need access to equipment, the proper skills & time to effect repairs.

[All of the above are violated by the Iron Man example many times.]

2. My interpretation of restrainable is exactly by the book and I fail to see how you can claim that it’s in any way “broadâ€.

You're right. The way Iron Man's armor loses powers one at a time doesn't fit for OIF. It doesn't fit for Restrainable either. It best works as a vehicle.

 

I went over the requirements for all of the limitations under discussion (Focus' date=' OIHID and Restrainable) back in post 79. Do you refute any of that? If not, then our entire dissagreement is not based upon game mechanics, but rather upon our individual interpretation of the Iron Man character & I've already covered (in that same message) how impossible that is to resolve.

Okay. If it's all about Iron Man, that's cool.

[JmOz]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I believe Fenixcrest was talking about how to use foci to model published characters' date=' not how to cheese out.[/quote']

 

First off this was my idea, it was in response to the fact that some people felt OIHID was better than foci and others kept bringing up the damage issues of OIHID (In otherwords it is not fair to say Cap Marvel does not loose powers while Iron Man goes). I personaly use OIF for this type of suit.

 

One interesting NPC I made had a couple of his powers bought OIHID and then others as OIF.

 

It was something like this

OIHID

Armor

Life Support

HRRH

 

OIF

Flight: Boot Jets

Attack MP: Weapon modules/guantlets

Radar

 

Both represented one battlesuit, just certain parts could be damaged/disabled others could not

 

One important thing about Foci that seem to be forgoten in the 12 second rule: It is the ability to disable not take away, a subtle difference...