OIF for Powered Armor why?

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

(Four Colour) Champions: Play half decent, and you will probably succeed. It's almost impossible for a character to be killed.

 

This seems to be where the disconnect lies. You apparently play in Four Colour campaign style. This rule change is for games that do not follow that path.

 

One of the great things about Hero is that it is flexible and easy to design a concept, including a Power Armor concept, exactly according to the notion of the player. What Lord Beavis is suggesting is to make ALL POWER ARMOR follow the same design dynamic and destroy the flexibility of the system to exactly mirror your idea. With Lord Beavis' notion, Dr. Destroyer's armor and Viper Agent Smith's armor are the same. Why should they be the same?

 

I agree, the system is very flexible. However, this alternate rule is not addressed. In my alternate rule, Dr. Destroyer's armor and Viper Agent Smith's armor are the same in that the armor is real and can be affected by the universe just like anything else. Their are alot of differences.

 

I also noticed, In Hugh's comments, the reliance on the comic book "feel" or being true to the comic books. I, haven't read a comic book in 15 or 16 years. I remember them from my youth, when I would go down to the five and dime and purchase the latest copy of Nazi Smasher and get a ice cream cone with a quarter!!.

Seriously, I don't play this game because of comic books. I understand that the origin or essence of the game comes from comic books, but that's where it ends for me. I suspect that is why we don't agree.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I'd have no problem with running a game in Middle-Earth that divulged from Tolkien, and I'd still say we'd be playing in Middle-Earth.

 

I'd have no problem with running a WoD game that caused events to diverge wildly from "real world" history.

 

I've had no problems with running an L5R game that veered sharply away from the canon metaplot.

 

I do have problems with claims that any divergence from canon [whatever] means I'm not really playing [whatever]. Because I doubt even the Tolkien estate is going to send out the ninja death squad to get me if I claim I'm running Middle-Earth without hobbits.

 

Here is an example of a person who has modified his game to meet his tastes. He doesn't go into specifics, but I am sure certain rules have either been modified, bent, or even dropped. For him, it's still the same game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

This seems to be where the disconnect lies. You apparently play in Four Colour campaign style. This rule change is for games that do not follow that path.

 

Fpour colour or space opera, it makes precious little difference. Given it's now been 12 pages, can you STATE your rule? It sounds a lot like either:

 

(a) All powered armor is OIF.

 

or

 

( Powered armor can be broken, stolen, etc. just like an OIF, but you don't get the cost savings from the OIF limitation.

 

You keep referring to some variant/optional rule (again below), new framework, etc., but haven't provided any real mechanics beyond the above two possibilities.

 

I agree' date=' the system is very flexible. However, this alternate rule is not addressed. In my alternate rule, Dr. Destroyer's armor and Viper Agent Smith's armor are the same in that the armor is real and can be affected by the universe just like anything else. Their are a lot of differences.[/quote']

 

Your alternate rule is as simple as "In this campaign, all powered armor must take the limitation "OIF". Powered armor cannot be represented by OIHID, or as SFX with no limitation. All powered armor is breakable, and can be easily removed from the wearer in a short period of time out of combat."

 

You may also be envisioning "And you don't get any point savings from the limitation", but that's not clear. You may also be envisioning "And requires epcial maintenance to remain functional", but that would require some defining and, again, is not clear from your posts that this is intended.

 

So my character won't have OIF powered armor. He'll have all the same powers and abilities, but an OIF Magic Ring. Is there some compelling reason this concept should be costed differently, or have different game mechanics, than powered armor?

 

Or he won't have OIHID Powered Armor. Instead, he will have OIHID - must invoke the Magic Word ("Stark") while wearing his magic ring, and all tyhe same powers the powered armor would have given him.

 

Or he won't be a man trapped in powered armor - he'll simply have all his powers inherent to himself because exposure to a magical ring permanently changed him.

 

By changing the special effects, I get mechanically the same character. He doesn't look the same (he's not wearing powered armor), but he's exactly the same character, mechanically, as he would have been if I had used powered armor instead of a magic ring as his back story.

 

And he should be - he has exactly the same abilities and limitations imposed on him by the game mechanics. He can do al the same things. He is just as effective - no more, and no less. There is, consequently, no reason whatsoever that he should be built any differently mechanically.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Here is an example of a person who has modified his game to meet his tastes. He doesn't go into specifics' date=' but I am sure certain rules have either been modified, bent, or even dropped. For him, it's still the same game.[/quote']

 

None of his statements (whoever "he" may be - not attributing your quotes is annoying, by the way) indicate he has modified, bent or dropped any rules. He has indicated he is changing the setting. I suppose is LoTR game could be said to drop any hobbit-specific rules, but it is just as easily said that they're all still out there - but there aren't any hobbits to apply them to. Of course, LoTR is an ugly example, since the setting is linked to the game. But one could certaily use the LoTR rules to run a game set in Talislanta.

 

Similarly, you might create a setting where all powered armor is required to take the OIF limitation because that's the state of powered armor technology. You have not changed the rules, you have restricted their application. You could even set the rule that powered armor gets no point break from OIF, despite having all its weaknesses. This will, as noted by others already. likely result in players rejecting powered armor in favour of concepts whose point cost is commensurate with its abilities and limitations.

 

But it's still not creating a new rule -it's application of the existing Hero rules. If that's your intent, please say so. If not, please outline your proposed variant rule.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Is it just me or has Lord Beavis' argument slowly mutated from "OIF is a meaningless limitation on Power Armor. I have this new idea that will DEFINITELY be in Sixth edition and all you fools are playing it wrong!" to "I want Powered Armor to function like this (Exactly like oIF) in my campaign."?

 

10+ Pages and we still haven't seen the big idea even though he's Ignoring anyone who dared to question his wisdom. I'm beggining to doubt its existence.

 

But on a more postive note, does anyone recall the old "Battlesuit" Limitation that was circling around a few years ago. It was essenitally OIF with a few more bells and whistles?

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

But it's still not creating a new rule -it's application of the existing Hero rules. If that's your intent, please say so. If not, please outline your proposed variant rule

.

 

I was trying to be polite and answer your posts. Here is the idea....

 

Power Armor - a suit of armor (technological, magical, or alien) that provides multiple powers (attack, defense, movement, and sensory or any combination of) or enhancement to characteristics.

 

Power Armor (no limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a irregular basis

5) Non-ferrous

6) Don in a normal time (set up by GM)

 

Power Armor (-1/4 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a regular basis

5) Non-ferrous or ferrous (if magnetics are rarely used)

6) Don in double normal time (set up by GM)

 

Power Armor (-1/2 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a strict schedule

5) Ferrous (if magnetics are regularly used)

6) Don in extended time (set up by GM)

 

This is not an exhausted list, but should get those people started. I am going to try this in the PBEM I am running.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

.

 

I was trying to be polite and answer your posts. Here is the idea....

 

Power Armor - a suit of armor (technological, magical, or alien) that provides multiple powers (attack, defense, movement, and sensory or any combination of) or enhancement to characteristics.

 

Power Armor (no limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a irregular basis

5) Non-ferrous

6) Don in a normal time (set up by GM)

 

Power Armor (-1/4 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a regular basis

5) Non-ferrous or ferrous (if magnetics are rarely used)

6) Don in double normal time (set up by GM)

 

Power Armor (-1/2 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a strict schedule

5) Ferrous (if magnetics are regularly used)

6) Don in extended time (set up by GM)

 

This is not an exhausted list, but should get those people started. I am going to try this in the PBEM I am running.

 

Interesting.

 

I can't say I care for it. It seems like punishing players that want a certain special effect. They get most of the limitations of OIF without any cost break. I might sound "mathmatically obessed" but that's just not fair. Inherent power pays the same thing for his abilities but doesn't have the problems.

 

It also arbitrarily limits a certain special effect. How do I represent more advanced suits of PA? My character's Bio Booster Armor might be organic and thus immune to magnetics and self repairing, but it is "Powered Armor".

 

For a specific campaign, I guess its a fine House Rule but I don't see it being incorporated into the official rules. And I also don't see alot of people playing No Limitation PA types under these rules.

[zornwil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

.

 

I was trying to be polite and answer your posts. Here is the idea....

 

Power Armor - a suit of armor (technological, magical, or alien) that provides multiple powers (attack, defense, movement, and sensory or any combination of) or enhancement to characteristics.

 

Power Armor (no limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a irregular basis

5) Non-ferrous

6) Don in a normal time (set up by GM)

 

Power Armor (-1/4 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a regular basis

5) Non-ferrous or ferrous (if magnetics are rarely used)

6) Don in double normal time (set up by GM)

 

Power Armor (-1/2 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a strict schedule

5) Ferrous (if magnetics are regularly used)

6) Don in extended time (set up by GM)

 

This is not an exhausted list, but should get those people started. I am going to try this in the PBEM I am running.

I would beware of trying to encompass too many different types of attributes into a single construct, from Real Weapon to ease of reconstitution, and in the process also being perhaps too granular. From the above, the -1/2 and -1/4 doesn't seem to really be worth -1/4 differentiation, however, that may be campaign-dependent.

 

Regarding the -0 level, I'm not sure why you're charging -0 for a Focus which can be taken away. That essentially denies the worth of any Foci on that basis, as even the most minor but "real" Focus gets a -1/4, regardless of whether it requires maintenance or takes time to deal with.

 

IMHO, Power Armor becomes unfairly of lower balance/power than any corresponding Focus. Just my two cents as to what I'd look to correct in this.

[Agent X]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

 

I was trying to be polite and answer your posts. Here is the idea....

 

Power Armor - a suit of armor (technological, magical, or alien) that provides multiple powers (attack, defense, movement, and sensory or any combination of) or enhancement to characteristics.

That's a pretty broad definition. It seems to me that you could build that many different ways under the present system to simulate various effects.

 

Power Armor (no limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a irregular basis

5) Non-ferrous

6) Don in a normal time (set up by GM)

Numbers 1, 2, and 6 indicate to me I should just buy the Powered Armor as an OIF.

 

Power Armor (-1/4 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a regular basis

5) Non-ferrous or ferrous (if magnetics are rarely used)

6) Don in double normal time (set up by GM)

Numbers 1, 2, and 6 indicate to me I should just buy the Powered Armor as an OIF and either some sort of extra time limitation or a disadvantage to simulate the long time it takes to get the armor on.

 

Power Armor (-1/2 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a strict schedule

5) Ferrous (if magnetics are regularly used)

6) Don in extended time (set up by GM)

Numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 indicate to me that I should just buy the power armor OIF with a Vulnerability Disadvantage to Magnetic Attacks, an activation roll that only takes effect for extended periods the armor is used out of the lab, and some sort of extra time limitation or a disadvantage to simulate the long time it takes to get the armor on.

 

This is not an exhausted list' date=' but should get those people started. I am going to try this in the PBEM I am running. [/quote'] I still don't see why you think this is easier or accomplishes something that the focus rules don't accomplish.

[Trebuchet]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

What's the point of a "Framework" which doesn't save any points? And for the versions which do, how do these differ from foci which have PA as their special effect?

 

This proposal accomplishes absolutely nothing except changing certain terms. It doesn't actually work any differently than the current PA sfx does. It just describes it differently. It is an utterly pointless exercise.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I don't need to quote it, do I?

 

Power Armor (common regardless of limitation)

 

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires maintenance

4) Systems test required

5) Takes time to don (set up by GM)

 

To me, that sounds like an OIF already, so I'm behind by -1/2.

 

To get to Power Armor (-1/4 limitation),

1) Systems test must be performed on a regular basis

2) Don in double normal time (set up by GM)

 

Is that worth -1/4? A power that takes a full phase to activate only is -1/4, so I suppose so.

 

To get the extra -1/4 limitation, add

1) Systems test performed on a strict schedule

2) Ferrous (if magnetics are regularly used)

3) Don in extended time (set up by GM)

 

So it takes much longer to put on (likely a bigger limitation than -1/4 al by itself compared to "Extra Time to Activate"), requires more rigorous maintenance and is affected by magnetics.

 

So for the same -1/2 OIF would get for any other construct, I get all the drawbacks of an OIF, lots of extra time to put the suit on, a rigorous maintenance schedule and I'm vulnerable to magnetic powers. What if it's a magnetism-based suit?

 

Never mind, I'll just play Magic Belt Man instead.

 

This is not an exhausted list' date=' but should get those people started. I am going to try this in the PBEM I am running.[/quote']

 

Let us know how many powered armor characters you get. I'll predict ZERO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Well, you DID get feedback. At least posting your idea accomplished that much!

[zornwil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

The thing is, if there are serious issues with a construct, it's hard to not be "negative" if by that word one means saying that it won't work or won't work well for general use. So, any history with harsh words even aside, one will get criticism if a construct has obvious/serious weaknesses, which this one does, frankly.

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

"Power Armor (no limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a irregular basis

5) Non-ferrous

6) Don in a normal time (set up by GM)"

 

wow--what a screw job for players wanting to play power armor charcters. OIF, but no reward; penalized with maintenanace time (when did superhero games turn into maintyenance tracking equipment centered games? As for time to don it--its the same time to change into any costume--one phase, unless you have instant change) no PA characters will exist under this sche,e.

 

"Power Armor (-1/4 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a regular basis

5) Non-ferrous or ferrous (if magnetics are rarely used)

6) Don in double normal time (set up by GM)"

 

Oh yeay--the same points saving as OIHD, just can now be damaged, taken away far more often, the same ridiculous concenrs about maintenance (he thinks players wont blow that off or ignore it, but cant play OIF properly), ditto about the system tests--and now, he doubles the time to put on the armor (and seems to hint it will be longer than standard)--so that cociievably be another minor limitation the player is cheeated of. PA characters still non existant in a campaign with this one.

 

 

 

"Power Armor (-1/2 limitation)

1) Can be damaged, destroyed, removed from the owner when unconscious,

2) Lost, stolen, or taken away temporarily

3) Requires minor maintenance (polish, painting, etc..)

4) Systems test performed on a strict schedule

5) Ferrous (if magnetics are regularly used)

6) Don in extended time (set up by GM)"

 

Virtually no difference between the 1/4 and 1/2 version other than the 'strict schedule' and extended time to put it on. Broken, painfully broken--and he thinks this wont be abused more.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I didn't say everyone would love the idea. This idea really springs from people who I have played with, who have used "house rules" similiar to this over the years.

 

It isn't an exhausted list and somethings can be switched, dropped, or added.

This is by no means a final version, but you get the gist.

 

Once again, this will not follow in lines of the four color campaign.

 

This rules works really well when the player "says why can't I do that to the villain's suit?" I have heard this alot.

 

This rule is the suggestion that special effects affect and vice-versa.

 

Well, you DID get feedback. At least posting your idea accomplished that much!

 

I appreciate the feedback!! Thankyou!!

[zornwil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I didn't say everyone would love the idea. This idea really springs from people who I have played with, who have used "house rules" similiar to this over the years.

 

It isn't an exhausted list and somethings can be switched, dropped, or added.

This is by no means a final version, but you get the gist.

 

Once again, this will not follow in lines of the four color campaign.

 

This rules works really well when the player "says why can't I do that to the villain's suit?" I have heard this alot.

 

This rule is the suggestion that special effects affect and vice-versa.

 

 

 

I appreciate the feedback!! Thankyou!!

Why not use existing Limitations? Which specific issues is this resolving and how?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Why not use existing Limitations? Which specific issues is this resolving and how?

 

LB seems to want a very gritty system of power armour. I think that this was stimulated by what he saw as power armour characters getting points for nothing as the GM wouldn't enforce OIF limitations.

 

Personally his ideas don't improve the core rules in my opinion but, if they had been presented as a genre enforcement ruleset then this might have been a very different thread.

 

Great Sky River by Gregory Benford has humanity living hand to mouth within the hidden crevices of a dominant mech-based society. If you wanted to run such a campaign then some of the suggestions for power armour (humans needed to use such to barely compete) would be very useful.

 

Ultimate Power Armour would benefit from a section describing just such a scenario and I'm sure that Digital Hero would lap up suggestions that would be useful for a very different Star Hero campaign where biological life was in danger of being made extinct by mecha and were becoming more mecha in an attempt to compete.

 

Not sure if I answered your question though!

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

LB seems to want a very gritty system of power armour. I think that this was stimulated by what he saw as power armour characters getting points for nothing as the GM wouldn't enforce OIF limitations.

 

Personally his ideas don't improve the core rules in my opinion but, if they had been presented as a genre enforcement ruleset then this might have been a very different thread.

 

Great Sky River by Gregory Benford has humanity living hand to mouth within the hidden crevices of a dominant mech-based society. If you wanted to run such a campaign then some of the suggestions for power armour (humans needed to use such to barely compete) would be very useful.

 

Ultimate Power Armour would benefit from a section describing just such a scenario and I'm sure that Digital Hero would lap up suggestions that would be useful for a very different Star Hero campaign where biological life was in danger of being made extinct by mecha and were becoming more mecha in an attempt to compete.

 

Not sure if I answered your question though!

 

Doc

I can definitely see it as befitting a very specific/particular genre, but even in that case there seems to be some presumptions about how the armor is being played out.

 

It sounds like in Lord Beavis' world, armor doesn't deserve a Focus limitation in general, but other limitations might be better applied.

[Sean Waters]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

LB seems to want a very gritty system of power armour.

 

 

Yeeeesh, gritty system of power armour. That's going to chafe...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

This rules works really well when the player "says why can't I do that to the villain's suit?" I have heard this alot.

 

There's generally an answer (beyond "cuz da rules sez so, dat's why") to player questions.

 

"Why can't I break his armor?" A: You don't know. You do know you've hit it with everything you've got and not even a fracture. [ie that OIHID armor has defenses beyond your ability to damage.]

 

"Why can't I use his armor?" A: How's your SS: Powered Armor? Don't have it? You don't know - you just know it doesn't work. Learned SS; power Armor? The armor appears to have an encephalographic link to its programmed user, and will respond only to his brainwaves. You might be able to reprogram it, but it would take a lot of time, effort and focus" (which in rule terms means spending xp to buy the armor yourself) GAME EFFECT: it's not a universal focus.

 

"Why can't I remove his armor?" Assuming appropriate skills, he may know that "The armor appears to have complex encryption software which prevents its being opened without a command from the wearer. Given enough skill and enough time, you might be able to decrypt it. A Security Systems roll at -15 would be needed, with a base time of 5 hours' work." GAME EFFECT: it's OIHID, not OIF.

 

Of course, now we have a new set of player questions, like:

 

"Why can't my powered armor have nanobots which repair it, maintain it and allow me to don it instantaneously?"

 

Or "Why does Magic Ring Man get a better point savings with less limitations than my Powered Armor Dude?"

 

Or "How come powered armor needs a maintenance and system checks, but blaster rifles do not?"

 

By the way, I don't so much dislike your concept as the fact that you apply it to a single special effect (powered armor) and all other concepts get to skate at the current point costs. By singling out powered armor alone for this treatment, you effectively make that one concept inefficient from a points perspective.

 

By the way, most of the drawbacks you suggest are the same ones OIF would generate. You initially told us your problem was that the OIF limitation wasn't enforced. How would this be different?

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

No, let them put on the villain's armor. Let Captain Suit use Dr Disintigrator's armor for a session or so. Give him the thrill of that 8D6 AP RKA. Then, after he loves it, tell him that a warning light came on inside the suit. It tells him that it needs a rare element to continue to operate. Fortunately, the suit has already pinpointed a reserve of the element. He just needs to break into this secret lab to retrieve it...

[Narthon]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Ok, I must admit, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm posting my experiences anyway.

 

Two campaigns ago, I played an oif power armor. In the about 1 year of playing once a week, we went on two missions to an alternate universe where we went to an alternate universe where the energy signiture of the universe didn't allow the armor to work and it acted as 4/4 bulky armor. On a seperate occasion, we were sent back in time without our focuses, and my character had to use a junky steam powered nazi mech with activation rolls on everything. Then there was the time that the armor got stollen and the character was kidnaped and had cables put directly into his brain to figure out how the armor was made. I'd say the gm got his use out of that. Considering that no disad or lim ever seems to be used to the extent it "should be" according to the rules, OIF seems just fine.

 

In fact, the only lim that I can think of that really has to enforce it's limit all the time is charges, as you either use all your charges and are limited, or don't and the points on the extra charges are "wasted".

[Kelcyron]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Taking away the suit isn't the only way to "enforce" the OIF lim either.

 

I played a powered armor character in a recent campaign, and we had a 2 month story arc dealing with a high-tech terrorist organization that stole the design for my armor, modified it, and attempted to mass produce it. The arc ended with a fight between 5 PC's and 1 NPC, and 10 enemies wearing modified copies of my armor. The fight ended with the power cores of 2 of them imploding, generating 2 mini-black holes in the middle of Japan (I did manage to close the black holes, but not before we got sucked into an alternate dimension).

 

Seem both the entire group and I got to pay for my OIF bonuses.

 

Kelcyron

[zornwil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I was just thinking, it sounds like Lord Beavis wants armor in superhero stuff to work like it does in the fantasy genre, to a large degee anyway. If so, Fantasy Hero offers some good options re armor, which one might adapt to power armor if so interested. I'm about to read Dark Champions, I imagine they have good material on modern armor, not sure about "power armor".

[Doc Democracy]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Yeeeesh' date=' gritty system of power armour. That's going to chafe... [/quote']

 

 

I can see a whole new Hero genre emerging. True Grit Hero!

 

Only a real hero would or could put up with the constant irritation caused by itching powder in their tighty whities....