[Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Not really. All I see happening is KA losing their ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. All this zero-limit double-talk doesn't change that fact. Did you even read my post?.

 

Of course, it was the one that attempted to completely side-step my original point.

 

 

It's a significant disadvantage, i.e.: KAs do less damage.

 

Then RKA should cost more than EB because, i.e. EB do less damage.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Of course' date=' it was the one that attempted to completely side-step my original point.[/quote']

 

It didn't side-step ANYTHING. It's a write-up for a Power with an imaginary 0-point Disad -- an imaginary 0-point Disad necessary for your theory to work.

 

RKA 2d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

 

Now, let's try it with Energy Blast:

 

Energy Blast 5d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

 

Except, guess what? Energy blasts ALREADY don't bypass non-resistant Defenses! They don't NEED that Disad -- they're already blocked by non-Resistant Defenses. So basically, it boils down to this:

 

RKA 2d6, -0 (Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)

Energy Blast 5d6, -0 (Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)

 

Then RKA should cost more than EB because' date=' i.e. EB do less damage.[/quote']

 

That's a rules grievance. Take it up with Steve. You can't say, "Well, even though KA just lost one of its deadliest attributes, EB was getting the shaft already, so why count it as a disadvantage?" You can, but it's your decision to alter the pre-existing rules, and when discussing things on the boards, we go by the rules as they are, not anyone's house rules.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I have to hand it to Fox1.

 

He can maintain grace under fire, even when facing the judgement of Steve Long, the FAQ, several other Rules-fu enthusiasts, and least of all, myself. Even if he is bluffing about the fact that AVLD KAs and Resistant Limited Defenses are broken as they are written right now -- which I strongly suspect; motive: doesn't want to concede the argument -- it really seems as though he knows what he's talking about.

 

Perhaps he does.

 

Technically though, I win. So far the only argument I've had to face is that I am "side-stepping the zero-point argument". Once I figure out exactly what that means -- sounds like double-talk -- I may find I have been outwitted.

 

At this point, I don't think anyone will disagree that "This KA is Subject to Non-Resistant Defenses" is worth a CP rebate as a Disadvantage to any Power built with a HKA or RKA.

[buzz]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I'm no mod, but could we ease up, people?

[buzz]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

A number of people took the new 'point sinks' in 5th edition with less than high spirits. You're seeing a little of that in this thread.

Then a number of people need to lighten up. Sheesh.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I'm no mod' date=' but could we ease up, people? [/quote']

 

Did I come off as an ass in that post about my discussion with Fox1?

 

I was really trying to give him credit where credit was due, and be as polite as possible. If I failed, I apologize.

[Blackberry]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Did I come off as an ass in that post about my discussion with Fox1?

 

I was really trying to give him credit where credit was due, and be as polite as possible. If I failed, I apologize.

 

Well, you did say "he's BSing" and "Technically... I win". Not exactly the most apologetic tones I've ever seen on a web forum.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Well' date=' you did say "he's BSing" and "Technically... I win". Not exactly the most apologetic tones I've ever seen on a web forum.[/quote']

 

I said I THINK he's BSing... and I DO technically win, if only because the rules and FAQ and Steve back me up.

 

Plus, if you've seen how I was before I "turned over a new leaf"... you'd know that that was mega-polite.

 

Anyway, I'll change BSing to "Bluffing".

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

RKA 2d6' date=' -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)[/b']

 

Now, let's try it with Energy Blast:

 

Energy Blast 5d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

.

 

 

That's not how it works. The cost for 15 points of RKA = 15 points of EB.

 

So, assuming EB as the reference power and 30 Active Points:

 

RKA 2d6: -0 (Bypasses Non-Resistant Defenses) = EB 6d6

 

Or if you like assuming RKA as the reference power:

 

RKA 2d6 = EB 6d6: -0 (Does not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

 

 

It seems clear, that one of the most core relationships in HERO considers the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses to be a 0 level advantage.

 

 

Now, one may take exception to that reasoning. That's fine.

 

 

But if one does not take exception to that reasoning, one certainly can't complain about me ruling that AVLD RKAs does not bypass non-resistant defenses because the limit you'd apply would be 0.

 

If anything, I'm more consistent on this matter than 5th edition which tries to have it both ways.

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Then a number of people need to lighten up. Sheesh.

 

A lot of people on these boards need to lighten up.

 

But I don't see it happening, so I'll note what I don't like when I see what I don't like.

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I said I THINK he's BSing... and I DO technically win, if only because the rules and FAQ and Steve back me up.

 

I don't believe that I ever stated that the current FAQ or Steve said anything differently.

 

I'm saying that their way of looking at it is flawed given the core asssumptions built into HERO, i.e. they screwed up.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

That's not how it works. The cost for 15 points of RKA = 15 points of EB.

 

So, assuming EB as the reference power and 30 Active Points:

 

RKA 2d6: -0 (Bypasses Non-Resistant Defenses) = EB 6d6

 

Or if you like assuming RKA as the reference power:

 

RKA 2d6 = EB 6d6: -0 (Does not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

 

 

It seems clear, that one of the most core relationships in HERO considers the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses to be a 0 level advantage.

 

 

Now, one may take exception to that reasoning. That's fine.

 

 

But if one does not take exception to that reasoning, one certainly can't complain about me ruling that AVLD RKAs does not bypass non-resistant defenses because the limit you'd apply would be 0.

 

If anything, I'm more consistent on this matter than 5th edition which tries to have it both ways.

 

Hmmm...

 

-- 1d6 RKA = 15 Character Points. 2d6 RKA, therefore, costs 30 Character Points.

-- 1d6 Energy Blast = 5 Character Points. 6d6 Energy Blast, therefore, costs 30 Character Points.

 

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

 

-- 2d6 RKA = Average of 3 BODY per die = 6 BODY per hit, plus STUN lottery.

-- 6d6 Energy Blast = Average of 1 BODY per die = 6 BODY per hit, with no STUN lottery OR ability to bypass Normal Defenses.

 

NO! Fox cannot be right! I AM INVINCIBLE!

 

::explodes::

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's right...

[Blackberry]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

RKA 2d6 = EB 6d6: -0 (Does not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

 

It seems clear, that one of the most core relationships in HERO considers the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses to be a 0 level advantage.

 

You forgot "Must use STUN Lottery system or hit location system to compute STUN damage" on the RKA.

 

And there are a lot of things that HERO considers a +0 advantage/-0 limitation -- Standard Effect, for instance, which can be very advantageous for Adjustment Powers.

[schir1964]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Howdy Blackberry!

 

It's been a long time. Glad to see you around here again. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I remember reverse engeneering KA from EB back in third (when there were some funky advantages to do damage with a Transform) it looked something like this.

 

EB

+1 Counts pips as body.

+1/2 has a d6-1 stun mult of the body rolled (these are the two I vaugely remember and I may have the numbers wrong, but I do remember that these advantages were printed in Champs 3 for Transform and the total was a +1 1/2)

+1/2 to go against resistant defenses (my big of reverse engeneering)

 

For 15 points.

 

And as damage resistance is effictirly a +1/2 advantage.

 

So in an old game I allowed an EB to go against resistant D as a +1/2 advantage*, and KA's to go against non resistant D as a -1/2 limitation.

 

So I am sure you can see where I stand on this issue.

 

 

* that meant a 10d6 EB vs Reistant D was 75 active - the equivelent of a 5d6 KA. Seemed balanced. Bloody, but balanced.

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

+1 Counts pips as body.

 

Should be +2

 

+1/2 has a d6-1 stun mult of the body rolled

 

Is not an advantage (except when added to a power that doesn't normally do stun at all).

 

This method in fact produces less average stun per point of body than the normal EB after accounting for the first advantage.

 

 

+1/2 to go against resistant defenses (my big of reverse engeneering)

 

Not considered an advantage in HERO at all.

 

The following are considered to be exactly equal pointed powers in offical HERO.

 

2d6 RKA

6d6 EB

6d6 EB, only does stun.

 

There is no doubt that in pure damage terms, the powers greatly decend in effectiveness.

 

But like a number of things in HERO, that isn't the measure of the point cost. Here they consider lethal -> semi-lethal -> non-lethal to hold advantages in the reverse order of damage effectiveness.

 

That is, it's better to be non-lethal in practical play than it is to be lethal. This advantage offsets the difference in effective damage.

 

This assumption (core to the HERO system) is what one must either agree with or disagree with.

 

And if you disagree with it, you need to modify point costs to bring the system into agreement with you.

 

 

For myself, I don't care. The points don't matter.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

For myself' date=' I don't care. The points don't matter.[/quote']

 

is this "Whose Line is it anyway?"

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

That is' date=' it's better to be non-lethal [b']in practical play[/b] than it is to be lethal. This advantage offsets the difference in effective damage.

 

Yeah, I agree that that seems to be the case.

[Onyxclaw]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Yeah' date=' I agree that that seems to be the case.[/quote']

 

I will also. There have been times where a character I've had has needed to just knock someone out and has had a very hard time not severley hurting them. It got so bad on a trial basis that I had to give them a nonlethal attack (electrical shock for stun only) just to make it posible.

 

When you do 3d6 killing with one hand you have to be careful what you do when you don't want to hurt people. Beign enormous and having huge claws aint going to help you take someone down in one piece.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

that's what the neutrino shotgun is for. A nice non-lethal blast of high raidation will be safe (as long as they have 3rPD)

 

But yeah, i'd really enjoy having a EB that does no body, it'd be very helpful

[Ura-Maru]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Seems I missed all the fun. Typical.

 

But on the other hand, buying such a cheap defense as Resistant is also really cheap, as is buying it Hardened. You'd need it Hardened against an Armor-Piercing AVLD:PowerD attack, right? You don't get Hardened for free just because not very many people buy Hardened Power Defense.

 

I don’t think this analogy is valid. An AP AVLD will do significantly less damage than the non AP version, because you have to pay for the advantage. The Killing and Normal versions do almost exactly the same. Hardened power defense has actually purchased by some existing characters. Hardened is also useful against AP Drains and the like. Resistant Power Defense is useful for nothing at all except stopping AVLD KAs.

 

And finally, Hardening the Power Defense costs half as much as making it resistant.

 

 

Black Lotus, I’m not disagreeing with your logic, I’m disagreeing with your axioms.

 

Short Version

 

Black Lotus:

a) Resistant Special Defenses Exist

Killing Attacks are only stopped by Resistant Defenses

Therefore,

c) Resistant Special Defenses are there to stop Killing AVLDs

 

As I already said, twice, yes, it does appear the rules work that way. And Steve is a valid authority to appeal to, as long as we’re arguing rules. So yes, you ‘win’ as long as you limit the argument to pure rules.

 

 

Ura:

a) AVLDs must be stopped by a special defense, such as Power Defense, Flash Defense, or Mental Defense, or a reasonably common ‘special effect’ defense.

A Special Defense with a specific advantage is not an acceptable defense against an AVLD

c) Making Special Defenses ‘resistant’ is equivalent to buying a +1/2 advantage on it.

Therefore,

d) Resistant Special Defense is not an acceptable Defense against an AVLD

Which leads to

e) Killing Attack KAs should be either stopped by a regular Special Defense, or not be allowed at all.

And from there to

f) Resistant Special Defenses should not exist

 

e and f are inductive, not deductive, of course. I think they’re valid for the reasons I’ve already explained.

 

When dealing with non-AVLD attacks, Normal and Killing attacks are roughly balanced, because almost everyone has at least a little rDefense, and because the dice amounts are high enough that the small amount of extra stun you get on average makes a difference.

 

Since, because AVLD attacks are so small, the amount of stun difference between the two is trivial, but the KA blowing through regular PD is NOT trivial. (and, as the obvious use of this power is to chip away the body of heavily defended targets, the tiny amount of extra body the KA version does makes it better for that purpose.

 

And I don’t think you can just say, ‘Well, the problem is only with ‘Does Body’ AVLDs.’ Because the Killing AVLDs do on average only a pip or two of stun less for the same cost, but have a vastly rarer defense.

 

However, it seems we both agree that the build is unacceptable. You deal with it by not allowing it, me by altering it until it’s acceptable. Could we, perhaps, agree that the end result is roughly the same, and that we’re arguing over nothing, in the Piers Anthian tradition?

 

---

If you want a system that only ever outlines what you should be doing go play D20 ... those rules seem to lead one by the nose enough for you.

 

Your opinion on the matter has been noted. Thank you for your input.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Seems I missed all the fun. Typical.

 

I already capitulated to Fox1 and recanted my ideas concerning this issue; if you check, you'll see what I mean. My axioms are flawed, if only because of this comparison:

 

-- 6d6 EB costs 30 CP; 2d6 RKA costs 30 CP.

-- 6d6 EB does 6 avg. damage; 2d6 RKA does 6 avg. damage.

-- Although they cost the same and do identical damage, RKA does Killing Damage, as well as getting to use the STUN lotto. It basically gets these advantages for free.

 

Hard to argue with that comparison.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

-- 6d6 EB costs 30 CP; 2d6 RKA costs 30 CP.

-- 6d6 EB does 6 avg. damage; 2d6 RKA does 6 avg. damage.

 

 

Actually, 6d6 EB averages 21 Stun and 6 BOD. 2d6 RKA averages 18 2/3 STUN and 7 BOD. The EB has a better shot at doing knockback, and the KA has much greater volatility of results rolled.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

D’oh! My fault. I somehow failed to process the last page.

 

An F for reading comprehension for tonight, I guess.

 

Sorry, Black Lotus.

 

---

Too much Mike’s Hard Berry, and not enough sleep, looks like.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Actually' date=' 6d6 EB averages 21 Stun and 6 BOD. 2d6 RKA averages 18 2/3 STUN and 7 BOD. The EB has a better shot at doing knockback, and the KA has much greater volatility of results rolled.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I was guesstimating. Generally, the precise number that a d6 generates is 3.5. So, when you are counting ALL the pips on a d6, you average 3.5, and (3.5 + 3.5) = 7. With the EB, any result of 2--5 counts as one "pip," so the average number of "pips" generated using Normal Damage is exactly 1. (1 + 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 +1) = 6. The difference in STUN averages between EB and and RKA mre-or-less make up for that one pip of damage, in my opinion -- now that I think about it -- since (3 x 6) = 18, and (3 x 7) = 21 -- The RKA does 116% more body, and the EB does 116% more STUN (averaged).

 

No question: "Does Killing Damage" is, indirectly, shown by the rules to be a 0-point Advantage -- and apparently, "Does NOT Do Killing Damage" is ALSO a 0-poiny Advantage; therefore, since all attacks do either one or the other, there's no value to either of them, since they're both valuable.

 

Neat. See? And you all thought I was a dunce.