OIF for Powered Armor why?

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

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...

 

There is alot of opportunity for adventure seeds....reason for Hunteds

 

Originally posted by zornwil

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".

 

Depends on the tech level of the campaign. Very realistic option.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

 

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.]

 

The problem with that concept is that if I can't damage the armor, how am I doing damage to the person inside it? If you all have agreed to OIHID, I don't think the question will be asked.

 

"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.

As long as this is spelled out up front, there are no problems. Universal focus can also be added to my list, thanks for the idea.

 

"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.

This can be added to my list, good idea.

 

 

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

I can count on my hands how many times I have ever seen Magic Ring Man or Magic Belt Man. People are fascinated by Powered Armor.

 

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

You can always add that to their OAF limitation.

 

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.

You can always apply these criterias to other items.

 

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?

The difference is that alot of times these OIF is not enforced, because GMs are running games with far too many characters with most of the time complex power builds in complex campaign settings. This is one reason OIF has become so "cliche".

 

I suggest a short list to draw from to help define the character a little further.

Also, if you are not playing in Four color campaigns, this list will greatly help.

 

The idea that people are going to drop out of Powered Armor because even without the limitation they can still have some problems with the armor just doesn't fly!!

 

Granted, some will decide to go a different direction with their characters, but the players who love Powered Armor will take it all in stride.

 

Good thing I didn't bring up making Powered Armor a type of VPP or suggesting Powered Armor is not solely a pile of points but actually built!

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

wow, he keeps getting more out of touch with reality.

 

"The difference is that alot of times these OIF is not enforced, because GMs are running games with far too many characters with most of the time complex power builds in complex campaign settings. This is one reason OIF has become so "cliche"."

 

Translation from Bizarro English: 'the problem my group has with reading basic rules and applying them must apply to everyone else. Making up a new unclear rule will obviously be easier to enforce than the ones already existing. After all, the way I think power armro should work will obviously be embraced by all who don't mind having their options limited'

 

 

"The idea that people are going to drop out of Powered Armor because even without the limitation they can still have some problems with the armor just doesn't fly!!"

 

The idea that players will cheerfully take the penalities of limitations without getting the benefits will fly about as well as Mount Rushmore.

[nexus]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

The problem with that concept is that if I can't damage the armor, how am I doing damage to the person inside it? If you all have agreed to OIHID, I don't think the question will be asked.

 

The damage can be transmitted to the much less durable person inside the armor without breaking the armor (it still function). The armor might be self sealing or sefl repairing as well.

 

I can count on my hands how many times I have ever seen Magic Ring Man or Magic Belt Man. People are fascinated by Powered Armor.

 

As has been said before in this thread, you need to stop beleiving your personal campaigns/experience dictates how every single campaign goes.

apply these criterias to other items.

 

The difference is that alot of times these OIF is not enforced, because GMs are running games with far too many characters with most of the time complex power builds in complex campaign settings. This is one reason OIF has become so "cliche".

 

I suggest a short list to draw from to help define the character a little further.

Also, if you are not playing in Four color campaigns, this list will greatly help.

 

So making the list longer and even more complicated is going to help them enforce the Limitation more?

 

The idea that people are going to drop out of Powered Armor because even without the limitation they can still have some problems with the armor just doesn't fly!!

 

Some players are masochists, but most Champions players that I know aren't going to go for "You have to pay full points for these powers but they were will be much more limited than someone else that brought becuase you decided they came from a pair of Iron Longjohn instead of your X Gene."

 

Granted, some will decide to go a different direction with their characters, but the players who love Powered Armor will take it all in stride.

 

I have no doubt a few that are extremely attracted to the idea will suck it up I've seen people play PA in systems where there is no tangiable positive effect), but all in all, I think the PA players are going to feel screwed.

 

But on a basic level if violates a core idea of Hero. Powers are priced according to utility. PA powers have no more intrinsic ability than inherent powers and are often more limited. Why does it make game sense that you buy the same cost for them merely because of sfx?

 

Good thing I didn't bring up making Powered Armor a type of VPP or suggesting Powered Armor is not solely a pile of points but actually built!

 

Um, what exactly does that mean? Everything in Hero is built on points.

 

I guess someone will have to quote this for him to see it.

[OddHat]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

The damage can be transmitted to the much less durable person inside the armor without breaking the armor (it still function). The armor might be self sealing or sefl repairing as well.

 

 

 

As has been said before in this thread, you need to stop beleiving your personal campaigns/experience dictates how every single campaign goes.

apply these criterias to other items.

 

 

 

So making the list longer and even more complicated is going to help them enforce the Limitation more?

 

 

 

Some players are masochists, but most Champions players that I know aren't going to go for "You have to pay full points for these powers but they were will be much more limited than someone else that brought becuase you decided they came from a pair of Iron Longjohn instead of your X Gene."

 

 

 

I have no doubt a few that are extremely attracted to the idea will suck it up I've seen people play PA in systems where there is no tangiable positive effect), but all in all, I think the PA players are going to feel screwed.

 

But on a basic level if violates a core idea of Hero. Powers are priced according to utility. PA powers have no more intrinsic ability than inherent powers and are often more limited. Why does it make game sense that you buy the same cost for them merely because of sfx?

 

 

 

Um, what exactly does that mean? Everything in Hero is built on points.

 

I guess someone will have to quote this for him to see it.

 

Quoted for viewing and possible feedback.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

The problem with that concept is that if I can't damage the armor' date=' how am I doing damage to the person inside it? If you all have agreed to OIHID, I don't think the question will be asked.[/quote']

 

The same way fine china arrives after shipping in 17 pieces, yet the crate is undamaged. For a comic book example, look at "Avengers vs Kang in the Old West", around Avengers 130-140. Kang's force field is impenetrable, and he's wearing armor inside it. Yet Thor can hit hard enough that Kang is injured from rattling around inside his force bubble. Simialr examples exist (I require a "force buble" character being picked up and shaken by heavy equipment, for example).

 

NOTE: Hero in general, and Supers Genre in particularm, does require flexing your imagination consaiderably, and sometimes suspending your disbelief a bit more for someone else's concept that may be a bit "out there", but is in line with the genre and won't break the game. As you have noted previously, I believe, it's all about compromise. "Compromise" does not mean "one person sets the rules and everyone else obeys them without question". It means give and take on all sides. Sometimes, a PC comes up with a concept that may mnot fit precisely, but it's interesting and not game-breaking, so you make an accommodation. Sometimes, his character has to change a bit as well.

 

I can count on my hands how many times I have ever seen Magic Ring Man or Magic Belt Man. People are fascinated by Powered Armor.

 

This is because, at least since the '60's, comics have been ruled by science, not magic. Powered armor is a very common concept in the comics, so it stands to reason it would be very common in the game. But, when you make powered armor a cost-ineffective choice, bet on people choosing something else that is cost-effective. "OK, I don't have powered armor as an OIHID, instead I have nanobots in my bloodstream that manifest a protective shell, weapons array, propulsion systems and sensory suites. It sure LOOKS like powered armor, but it's REALLY nanobots in my bloodstream. OIHID - they can't manifest in intense electromagnetic or electrical fields, but once active they stay active."

 

You can always add that to their OAF limitation.

***************************************************

You can always apply these criterias to other items.

 

Or I could reserve this type of routuine meintenance (which, frankly, isn't a lot of add-on to the role playing experience) to those characters who choose to apply the "real weapon/real armor" limitation to their devices, rather than impose it on them for no incremental point savings.

 

The difference is that alot of times these OIF is not enforced' date=' because GMs are running games with far too many characters with most of the time complex power builds in complex campaign settings. This is one reason OIF has become so "cliche".[/quote']

 

You seem to use "common" interchangeably with "cliche". The reason it is very common in the game is that it is very common in the cource material. If I buy a Stargate game, I expect to see the Stargate cliches available and ready for effective, common use. There must be a reason those personal force fields won't work for humans - otherwise, the SG teams would use them. I expect the game to tell me what it is. There must be a reason SG teams choose to use zat guns, on occasion, but staff weapons only when their semi-automatics are not available, and I expect the game to provide it. And I expect the game to let me travel through the Stargate without a "Save vs Nausea" every time, because the SG teams manage transport just fine.

 

Where was I? Oh yes, the point. You have proposed what you classify as a replacement for OIF. Yet its major drawbacks are the possibility the device will be damaged or removed from the character, both of which are already limits for an OIF, which you believe is not properly enforced. You want them to require maintenance and system checks, which is a function of the "real weapon/real armor" limitation already. And you want it to take extra time to put on, which is a function of the existing Extra Time (or, absent a focus, OIHID) limitation. And you want to restrict the materials from which it can be contructed (frerrous vs non-ferrous) which impacts only one special effect anyway.

 

In other words, I don't see your new approach adding a material amount of new concepts to the system. I, like others., could see these criteria being applied in a game to define the levels of technology available (a mech-suit inspired Star Hero or Champions game, for example), however I see no reason not to implement it using the existing rules, defining the OIF, Real Armor and Extra Time (and maybe Concentrate) to Activate limitations for each of the three criteria.

 

With the exception of complexity, and a discrepancy between powered armor and other foci (or is my OIF Magic Sash now required to be made of ferrous metal?) I don't se what this adds to the game.

 

The idea that people are going to drop out of Powered Armor because even without the limitation they can still have some problems with the armor just doesn't fly!!

********************************************************

Granted, some will decide to go a different direction with their characters, but the players who love Powered Armor will take it all in stride.

 

Let's say I believe ranged attacks should be inherently unstable. As a result, I impose a 14-activation roll, and side effect (character takes his own attack, but he does get his own defenses against it) on all attack powers with Range. And I don't alow them any point break - reduce your activation to 11- and that's a -1/2 limitation. Make your side effects "no defenses" and you get -1/4. And Personal Immunity will be a +1 advantage for these powers.

 

Do you think the guys who wanted to play an Energy Projector will just tough it out, or will they realize I have handed a huge advantage to HTH attacks, and make a flying Martial Artist instead? My guess is that Energy Projectors will drop right off the map. Why? Because my change to the pricing model makes them point-inefficient. [Or, given the option, the guy who loves playing EP's will find a game where they aren't crippled by GM pique.]

 

That, or they'll play one thinking, naively, that the GM has made these changes in the best interests of balance and their character will be just as effective as the Brick and the Archer. And they will become very frustrated and unhappy as they realize that only their concept has been saddled with significant limitations for no point benefit.

 

Good thing I didn't bring up making Powered Armor a type of VPP or suggesting Powered Armor is not solely a pile of points but actually built!

 

Well, resricting powered armor to something the player actually builds will certainly make it less common. "Sorry, guys, I can't play Vanadium Man tonight. My arc welder was in the shop last week, so I wasn't able to finish the suit. And these guys in dark suits and sunglasses foillowed me home from the hardware store today after I asked where they keep the plutonium."

 

I've mentioned previously that a VPP for powered armor would allow for real customization, as in the old multiple Iron Man suits. You seem not to realize that no one is averse to any of your prpoposed structures for powered armor. They are, however, opposed to:

 

(a) restricting what, in the source material, has a broad array of different effects to a single possible structure, eliminating many of these variant special effects

 

( applying limitations to a specific special effect, especially without factoring those limitations into the point cost

 

and/or

 

© making a change when the existing rules cover all the mechanics you seem to be looking for just fine.

 

This may be a misinterpretation, as it is based on a very narrow issue, but every time I read these posts, I think of a GM who wants to define how all the characters' powers work rather than let them have a say in the "physics" of their super powers.

 

"No, I don't think mutant wings would provide flight, only gliding. And you should have a reduced CON because you say your character has hollow bones like a bird." "Fire isn't an energy blast, it's a killing attack." Or "All powered armor can be easily removed from its owner, used by others who have no understanding of the technology, and readily damaged or destroyed under combat conditions."

 

Maybe it's just powered armor, in which case I'd shelve Vanadium Man for someone else's game (preferably one you aren't playing in, so I don't have to continually hear about how "wrong" my powered armor character is) and play a shrinking, insect controlling scientist in your game. It wouldn't be the first time I've shelved a concept because the GM wanted changes that would remove the flavour I was looking for.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I am not here to change any minds or change the rules of the HERO system.

 

All I am giving is my take on the concept of Powered Armor. This viewpiont comes from years of watching, participating, and playing in RPGs crossing all the genres. I have played many Super Hero RPGs.

 

If this is not your cup of tea, I understand. I appreciate the feedback and if anyone would like to work on the list, as posted earlier, I would gladly accept any submissions.

 

I believe this topic has been discussed enough, and I believe everyone has had an opportunity to voice their opinion.

 

I believe I should quit while I am ahead (?), neck and neck (?), falling behind(?)

 

I will also be updating the successes and failures of the project for all those interested.

[Kristopher]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I am not here to change any minds or change the rules of the HERO system.

 

All I am giving is my take on the concept of Powered Armor. This viewpiont comes from years of watching, participating, and playing in RPGs crossing all the genres. I have played many Super Hero RPGs.

 

If this is not your cup of tea, I understand. I appreciate the feedback and if anyone would like to work on the list, as posted earlier, I would gladly accept any submissions.

 

I believe this topic has been discussed enough, and I believe everyone has had an opportunity to voice their opinion.

 

I believe I should quit while I am ahead (?), neck and neck (?), falling behind(?)

 

I will also be updating the successes and failures of the project for all those interested.

 

What your "intent" is seems to change with the wind, never mind what you were proposing, which was never really clear.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Someone suggested taking a look a new limitation kicked around....called

Battlesuit.

 

I found it out on the web. It is a -1/2 limitation. It works exactly like a focus.

 

They even have a list of malfunctions and breakdowns based on the battle suit (powered armor) taking a BODY. They even came up with a 5 or less on the roll plus 1 BODY to determine if a part of the battlesuit (a power) malfunctions.

 

It is an interesting concept. I like the chart and the roll idea.

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Someone suggested taking a look a new limitation kicked around....called

Battlesuit.

 

I found it out on the web. It is a -1/2 limitation. It works exactly like a focus.

 

anyone else just laughing in amazement right now?

[MitchellS]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

anyone else just laughing in amazement right now?

I gave up laughing a long time ago.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Someone suggested taking a look a new limitation kicked around....called

Battlesuit.

 

I found it out on the web. It is a -1/2 limitation. It works exactly like a focus.

 

It IS a focus. "Battlesuit" is simply the name of the specifc OIF. Another character might have a -1/2 limitation called "Glowing Magic Ring".

 

This is simply fleshing out of the suggestion you were given throughout this thread - actually ENFORCING the OIF limitation - by detailing specifics of what happens if the focus is damaged. This is something any semi-competent GM will do with a PC with a significant focus. Just as the GM needs to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the characters, a focus which will commonly be in the line of fire should also have its strengths and weaknesses known by the GM.

 

They even have a list of malfunctions and breakdowns based on the battle suit (powered armor) taking a BODY. They even came up with a 5 or less on the roll plus 1 BODY to determine if a part of the battlesuit (a power) malfunctions.

 

It is an interesting concept. I like the chart and the roll idea.

 

Hmmm...except for this. This is actually far less disadvantageous than OIF, which would be damaged (a power is lost) every time the OIF takes BOD damage. This variation means you need to take 5 BOD to have an even chance (10-) of anything going wrong. Remove that wrinkle, however, (ie go back to "any BOD damages the focus") and you return to the standard Hero OIF system.

 

There is one change I would consider making to the Focus rules, however. I would consider a player choice for devices which provide defenses. They can either:

 

(a) Benefit from the defenses they provide. However, this means they are automatically hit if their defenses come into play. For example, a shield providing Armor 18/18, OIF, 14- would have 18 DEF for purposes of being damaged. But it would be damaged by any attack hitting the character if the activation rtoll succeeds and the 18 Defenses are available to the cyharacter. Why? Because Cap's shield is hit if Cap gets its defenses.

 

( Use the defenses calculated based on AP, but the focus is not automatically hit if the defenses it provides come into play. Example: Brainiac 5's force field belt (mechanically, I consider this a personal force wall). The field generated can be hit with no harm to the belt, but the belt isn't exceptionally durable if you can hit it directly. Softy that I am, I would likely allow the belt to be worn beneath armor, force fields, etc.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

However, the problem with this concept is this still does not address the problem with Power Armor, generally. This rule only applies to those games where Four color role playing occurs.

 

I have also seen on the web House rules that follow along with my idea of "all powered armor, devices, weapons are foci and can never take away that aspect".

 

These games do not follow the four color campaign idea.

 

I am still developing my list and be able to intergrate the chart.

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

However' date=' the problem with this concept is this still does not address the problem with Power Armor, generally. This rule only applies to those games where Four color role playing occurs. [/quote']

 

Could someone translate that to English? I don't speak 'vague'. In sequential order, he had to be responding to Hugh's post...but how that was a repsonse still eludes me.

 

I do so pity his players.

[Trebuchet]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

However' date=' the problem with this concept is this still does not address the problem with Power Armor, generally. This rule only applies to those games where Four color role playing occurs.[/quote']A "problem" which only you seem able to discern. The rest of us unwashed masses just apply standard Focus rules to the "powered armor" special effect and muddle right along...

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Do you consider armor as a power? I have seen conflicting ideas about this. Some house rules say yes and others say no.

 

I have also seen house rules that do not allow Suppress power (sometimes generally) and sometimes (specifically towards various defenses)

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Do you consider armor as a power? I have seen conflicting ideas about this. Some house rules say yes and others say no.

 

I have also seen house rules that do not allow Suppress power (sometimes generally) and sometimes (specifically towards various defenses)

 

 

::see incrdbil run::

::incrdbil looks at rulebook::

::incrdbil looks up Armor::

::incrdbil sees Armor in Power Section::

::run incrdbil Run!::

 

[zornwil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Do you consider armor as a power? I have seen conflicting ideas about this. Some house rules say yes and others say no.

 

I have also seen house rules that do not allow Suppress power (sometimes generally) and sometimes (specifically towards various defenses)

I think you're referring to where armor is simply equipment as to where house rules say "no" on the matter. Armor is always a "Power" but there's "Real World" armor as in a fantasy game typically given out as equipment, not costing points to the player, and functioning with realistic limitations. Whereas in other genres, particularly supers, armor costs points and functions only with limitations as they are assigned.

[Agent X]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

I think you're referring to where armor is simply equipment as to where house rules say "no" on the matter. Armor is always a "Power" but there's "Real World" armor as in a fantasy game typically given out as equipment' date=' not costing points to the player, and functioning with realistic limitations. Whereas in other genres, particularly supers, armor costs points and functions only with limitations as they are assigned.[/quote'] Awesome, a constructive response.

[Trebuchet]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Do you consider armor as a power? I have seen conflicting ideas about this. Some house rules say yes and others say no.

 

I have also seen house rules that do not allow Suppress power (sometimes generally) and sometimes (specifically towards various defenses)

The Power "Armor" is not the same thing as the special effect "Powered Armor," although obviously the latter might include the former. As defined by Hero rules Armor is a Power; house rules are just that: House rules. One certainly cannot hold any official rule to be inherently flawed simply because a campaign-specific house rule alters it. We essentially have no house rules in our campaign; other campaigns have literally pages of them.

 

What point are you trying to make with regards to Suppress and defenses? I don't understand the question.

[incrdbil]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Awesome' date=' a constructive response.[/quote']

 

It was a great constructive response..but speaking on behalf of the Legion of the Ignored, I can assure you it was very likely wasted. Despite the seeming preoccupation with mechanics, LB's discernable intent has been something like this. "i think Power Armor should only work this way, and I want to make rules that will only let it work my way, to replace those others rules players might use thinking they get to envision how they create their characters".

 

So, yes, it was a wonderful response but I'm afraid it's going to be wasted. In truth, the main reason most people are still in this thread is the amusement factor (and perhaps morbid curiosity) of just what out of left field statement LB's going to come up with next.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

However' date=' the problem with this concept is this still does not address the problem with Power Armor, generally. This rule only applies to those games where Four color role playing occurs.[/quote']

 

For the sake of discussion, I am going to assume that you have, indeed, said it in plain, unambiguous English and it's gotten lost over 15 pages? Would you please restate, in clear language, what "the problems with Power Armor, generally" are?

 

I have also seen on the web House rules that follow along with my idea of "all powered armor' date=' devices, weapons are foci and can never take away that aspect".[/quote']

 

That's suggested somewhere in the previous pages - if you don't want it to be possible to have powered armor that cannot be easily removed (OIHID, for example) because you consider that "too Four Colour", and you don't want powered armor formed out of nanobots in a character's bloodstream (no limitation whatsoever) for the same reason, simply apply the toolkit and make it a campaign rule that "All powered armor shall be OIF, and other concepts of powered armor are not permitted in this game".

[Constantine]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

That's suggested somewhere in the previous pages - if you don't want it to be possible to have powered armor that cannot removed (OIHID' date=' for example) because you consider that "too Four Colour", and you don't want powered armor formed out of nanobots in a character's bloodstream (no limitation whatsoever) for the same reason, simply apply the toolkit and make it a campaign rule that "All powered armor shall be OIF, and other concepts of powered armor are not permitted in this game".[/quote']

 

Zigactly. Then, also announce that you will be strictly enforcing the focus rules (which is what it seems LB is really after) and we can end this entire thread...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Zigactly. Then' date=' also announce that you will be strictly enforcing the focus rules (which is what it seems LB is really after) and we can end this entire thread... [/quote']

 

I dunno...I thought it was dead once, but someone must have pulled the stake out!

[MitchellS]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

 

::see incrdbil run::

::incrdbil looks at rulebook::

::incrdbil looks up Armor::

::incrdbil sees Armor in Power Section::

::run incrdbil Run!::

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to incrdbil again.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: OIF for Powered Armor why?

 

Originally post by Hugh Neilson

That's suggested somewhere in the previous pages - if you don't want it to be possible to have powered armor that cannot be easily removed (OIHID, for example) because you consider that "too Four Colour", and you don't want powered armor formed out of nanobots in a character's bloodstream (no limitation whatsoever) for the same reason, simply apply the toolkit and make it a campaign rule that "All powered armor shall be OIF, and other concepts of powered armor are not permitted in this game".

 

Exactly, that what is being discussed. Toolkit or alternate rule. I e-mailed the members of the group about this, and I have received positive feedback. We only have one powered armor guy, and even said, "Yeah, what's the problem??"

 

We have discussed this previously and he had plenty of time to think about it.