Avlse

[Sean Waters]

Re: The tryanny of labels

 

Well, not everything - but the majority of any given game is SFX and not Mechanics. Or at least should be.

 

and stop making sense ... I owe you Rep already for several other things...

 

 

Terribly sorry: nornal service will doubtless be resumed shortly

[Sean Waters]

Re: Avlse

 

OK, if we have a more sfx based approach to defences (and have AVLSE) it IS certainly more difficult to build a character that is virtually indestructible: has defences to anything you can throw against them, even if, pretty much by definition, if you have ALL of the defences, none are likely to be spectacular. I accept that fully. Same argument goes if you make power defence sfx based.

 

As you bought it up (I was restraining myself: I know this is the standard argument path, and I've not always been on this side of it) we COULD go the other way and have a single defence stat that covers pd, ed, mental defence, power deefence, flash defence, whatever, then define the character's defences by limitations on the stat or disadvantages. I'm not advocating that, just painting in the whole spectrum.

 

At present, Hero is a balance, and a balance that has worked pretty well for a long time, no denying that.

 

I don't for a moment think that Mr Long is lurking, pen in hand, re-writing 5ER, but if you are, Steve, it's S-E-A-N, not Shaun, Shawn, or for that matter, Shorn (although I have had a haircut recently, so maybe it is), BUT there does seem to be a sizeable body of interest and support for a more sfx based approach.

 

Like anything, this can be abused. Take enhanced senses: if you want to be able to see no matter WHAT the enemy does, you pick an obscure and bizarre unusual sense group no one will ever have the foresight to have a flash for. That's what sfx can do: open up the abuse potential. I suppose this is the argument mentioned above (immoveable or irresistable: you can't have both!)

 

OTOH, it seems to me that, whilst a mechanically based approach makes a great deal of sense from the GM and character designer's POV, it can make very little apparent sense from the POV of the actual characters.

 

HERO, in common with most rpgs, is a game of imagination and storytelling (and, of course, scads of dice and property destruction ), and the biggest knocks the narrative often seems to take is when mechanics intrude into the game, like a six dimensional object pushing into a three dimensional world: you have no idea what it is, or what it is for, you just know it is in the way; and the only way to deal with it is to step out of theat 3D world for a while.

 

With foresight and planning such disruption can be minimised, maybe all but eliminated, but the same can be said of an sfx based approach.

 

The difference is that the problems with an sfx based approach all tend to occur in the character creation and planning phase where, frankly, I don't think it matters so much. The mechanics based problems tend to apepar in-game, and whilst it would be pure hysteria to suggest that they could de-rail a game, they can certainly make the ride a lot bumpier than it should be.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Avlse

 

OK' date=' if we have a more sfx based approach to defences (and have AVLSE) it IS certainly more difficult to build a character that is virtually indestructible:[/quote']

 

Virtually indestructable characters:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35184

 

(but AVLSE or not, nigh-invulnerable characters are really hard to get a GM's sign-off for)

 

 

 

At present' date=' Hero is a balance, and a balance that has worked pretty well for a long time, no denying that.[/quote']

 

Right you are. And I don't think AVLSE or similar ideas are intended to upset balance (any GM who signs off on "the defense is being near the time-space anomoly at the center of the universe" deserves what he gets, really). HERO has long professed to be all about-- driven by!-- the sfx; AVLSE simply makes it live up to those claims.

 

Like anything' date=' this can be abused. Take enhanced senses: if you want to be able to see no matter WHAT the enemy does, you pick an obscure and bizarre unusual sense group no one will ever have the foresight to have a flash for. That's what sfx can do: open up the abuse potential. I suppose this is the argument mentioned above (immoveable or irresistable: you can't have both!)[/quote']

 

You don't need SFX to breat the rules. You can do it purely with the mechanics. See no matter what:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35350

 

Again, the GM has the job of approving or denying what's right or wrong for his universe.

 

The difference is that the problems with an sfx based approach all tend to occur in the character creation and planning phase where' date=' frankly, I don't think it matters so much. The mechanics based problems tend to apepar in-game, and whilst it would be pure hysteria to suggest that they could de-rail a game, they can certainly make the ride a lot bumpier than it should be.[/quote']

 

And to think of the tomes and tomes of writing I've done to say this very simple thing! Props, Reps, and other good things arriving on the next boat! They'll be in the black crate with the green piping

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Avlse

 

Take enhanced senses: if you want to be able to see no matter WHAT the enemy does' date=' you pick an obscure and bizarre unusual sense group no one will ever have the foresight to have a flash for. That's what sfx can do: open up the abuse potential.[/quote']

Yes, you can do that...but you're going to be paying a lot for the option. Assuming you want it to have the abilities of Normal Sight, but without using the Simulated Sense Group rule (after all, you're trying to avoid things like Flashes) then it's going to be expensive...in most cases, as expensive as a lot of the "invulnerability" options discussed in other recent threads.

 

If a player is paying that many points, he has a right to expect to have that sense not affected by Flashes. (Heck, for that matter, he could take 30 points of Flash Defense for -- in example, say the Sight Group -- and be effectively immune to Flash for that Sense Group anyway. Personally, I'd rather he bought the unusual sense, because it has more "flavor" & "color". But that's me. )

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Avlse

 

Personally' date=' I'd rather he bought the unusual sense, because it has more "flavor" & "color". But that's me. )[/quote']

 

Agreed! Flavor and color are the reasons we role-play in the first place, aren't they?

 

Duke

[prestidigitator]

Re: Avlse

 

prestidigitator,

 

I'm confused by what you are saying, so please bear with me.

 

Are you saying that ALVD should work like NND, or are you saying NND should be based on Mechanics not SFX?

 

Or perhaps something else.

 

Also, to be book legal with AVLD, you are limited to; Physical Defense, Energy Defense, Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Power Defense, Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall. Anything else would be GM Defined/Permission Only and wouldn't be book legal.

 

I find this extremely limiting myself, so I don't know how expanding the role of AVLD to include functionality like NND would be more limiting.

 

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not suggesting that the original posting claimed this expansion, but I am right now.

I'm saying that both NND and AVLD should be as they are now, and that is neither Special-Effect- or mechanics-based, but open to either. I can define the NND defense as having some appropriate Life Support, having a Force Field, or having a, "force field;" I can define it as the target not being able to see, or being covered in liquid.

 

AVLD is defined as working against one of the defenses you mentioned, except that you can actually define it as working against a, "more limited form," of a particular defense. I take this as meaning you could have it work against Resistant PD, or only PD bought through Armor, or PD provided by a, "rigid covering." Once again, not necessarily SFX based or mechanics based, but possibly either, both, or something else entirely.

 

The application of either Advantage needs to be carefully watched by the GM, of course. A defense that is too rare may certainly be denied (or possibly increased in value IMO). An AVLD against PD that is only provided by a defense with is, "electrically charged," may be too rare to be allowed (or it may be worth more of an Advantage, such as a +2), depending on the campaign. Perhaps in a particular sci-fi setting it would be common enough. In most fantasy settings it would not.

[schir1964]

Re: Avlse

 

I'm saying that both NND and AVLD should be as they are now' date=' and that is neither Special-Effect- or mechanics-based, but open to either. I can define the NND defense as having some appropriate Life Support, having a Force Field, or having a, "force field;" I can define it as the target not being able to see, or being covered in liquid.[/quote']

It seems you are favor of making AVLD like NND which allows an SFX based defense and therefore is book legal.

 

My Opinions:

PD/ED - Are associated with SFX indirectly.

Life Support - Freely mixes SFX with Mechanics.

Force Field - Is a mechanic construct to make creating certain common SFX easier to build.

Force Field SFX - Can be many different Mechanics depending on the what the SFX actually does.

Blindness/Blinded - May be either a Disadvantage or Character Temporarily affected by a Sense Affecting Power.

Circumstance - An event or state of being that may occur within the game.

 

As you can see, everyone of your examples can easily be categorized to either a Mechanic or SFX or Circumstance (which is used by many limitations).

 

Of course you'll disagree with some of this since you an I differ on how the mechanics are influenced by the SFX they were intended to allow simulation for. But that's okay, we don't have to agree on that. We just see things differently in this aspect.

 

AVLD is defined as working against one of the defenses you mentioned' date=' except that you can actually define it as working against a, "more limited form," of a particular defense. I take this as meaning you could have it work against Resistant PD, or only PD bought through Armor, or PD provided by a, "rigid covering." Once again, not necessarily SFX based [i']or[/i] mechanics based, but possibly either, both, or something else entirely

Well all your examples are vs Mechanics, since each one is still defined within the base mechanic itself, and doesn't allow for multiple Defenses like an SFX based one would. And this is all purely book legal, but it restricts me from defining it as something else entirely and it being still book legal.

 

Example: AVLD vs STR is not book legal, but it makes a whole lot of sense for certain concepts.

 

The application of either Advantage needs to be carefully watched by the GM' date=' of course...[/quote']

AVLD already has a Caution Sign next to it, so this already meets this criteria, however, NND does not, so I presume you think that it should as well.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Avlse

 

It seems you are favor of making AVLD like NND which allows an SFX based defense and therefore is book legal.

 

My Opinions:

PD/ED - Are associated with SFX indirectly.

Life Support - Freely mixes SFX with Mechanics.

Force Field - Is a mechanic construct to make creating certain common SFX easier to build.

Force Field SFX - Can be many different Mechanics depending on the what the SFX actually does.

Blindness/Blinded - May be either a Disadvantage or Character Temporarily affected by a Sense Affecting Power.

Circumstance - An event or state of being that may occur within the game.

 

As you can see, everyone of your examples can easily be categorized to either a Mechanic or SFX or Circumstance (which is used by many limitations).

Yep! But not all of them can necessarily be categorized into SFX only and there are plenty of other examples that wouldn't fit a a SFX-only criterion either. And I think this is fine. That is my whole point. I'm not saying: "SFX shouldn't be used as criteria." I'm saying, "criteria shouldn't be limited to SFX!"

 

Of course you'll disagree with some of this since you an I differ on how the mechanics are influenced by the SFX they were intended to allow simulation for. But that's okay, we don't have to agree on that. We just see things differently in this aspect.

Some of it, such as the PD/ED division, the purpose of which I feel to be as much a gaming distinction as a SFX one. But the particular points on which I would disagree with you do not change that I agree with your general statement of using mechanics, SFX, and/or circumstances.

 

Well all your examples are vs Mechanics, since each one is still defined within the base mechanic itself, and doesn't allow for multiple Defenses like an SFX based one would. And this is all purely book legal, but it restricts me from defining it as something else entirely and it being still book legal.

All of them except for the, "rigid covering," which is SFX--it could provide normal PD/ED, Damage Resistance, Armor, Force Wall, and maybe even Force Field depending on how you specifically want to describe it (Non-Persistant plating that the character forces out of his skin, for example; I don't know ).

 

Example: AVLD vs STR is not book legal, but it makes a whole lot of sense for certain concepts.

Huh. Now that could be an interesting extension to AVLD. I'll think on that.

 

AVLD already has a Caution Sign next to it, so this already meets this criteria, however, NND does not, so I presume you think that it should as well.

Yep. (It doesn't?! Wow. I guess I just always assumed it had one. Heh.) Of course, that a Power or Modifier doesn't have a warning or stop next ot it doesn't necessarily mean I don't think it should be monitored by the GM. Some things can be dangerous even if not being alarmingly and obviously so most of the time.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Avlse

 

I'm not saying: "SFX shouldn't be used as criteria." I'm saying' date=' "criteria shouldn't be limited to SFX!"[/quote']

 

Well, Hell's Bell's, P; why didn't you say so before?

:rofl::rofl:

 

heh heh heh-- sorry about that. It seems that we've all been more or less defending the same position against each other..... :cool:.... Nobody wants to _remove_ AVLD (I don't think; I'm no mind reader :wink: ); we merely want to add a bit more flexibility to it.

 

AVLSE would be like any other Advantage or Limitation. Either you allow it or you don't, and just because it's there doesn't mean that anyone is every going to use it. Okay, that's kind of a cop-out, isn't it? Great; now I'm _speaking_ in metagamese..... Re-roll: No one here is suggesting totally replacing the mechanics with SFX, simply because the bulk of the time the mechanic itself is going to be an accurate representation of some general property of the SFX.

 

To use the classic example "Not Against Rigid Defenses,' well most armors, Force Fields, Force Walls, etc-- even a character whose hide is made of steel or stone-- are going to qualify. Of course, a character whose FF is defined as a swarm of hornets is going to get plastered.......

 

Or the infamous 'Standard Defense Package' (I have gotten to the point that I will tear a character sheet in half if it has that written on it anywhere) usually includes a small block of Mental Defense. "Just in case." (GGGRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!) A power built with the current AVLD states that MD stops it cold. Fine. Any sort of Mental Defense stops it cold, if its natural ability, a magic spell of protection, or even a special hat with a Briggs and Straton on it (Thank you, HERO board for introducing me to the Tick!).

 

But suppose you want to model a power that is stopped by 'actual' mental powers, sourced from the mind of another egoist? The helmet is out, as it's focused. If the spell is from an amulet, it may not be appropriate either. But in pure mechanics, they are both 'mental powers.' Going against SFX, a character armed with nothing more than telepathy may well be immune to this power, whereas he could not using just 'AVLD.'

 

On a totally unrelated note, it occurs to me that my biggest grief with AVLD (outside of the exclusive mechanics-only realm of it) is that the name itself smacks of minmaxing: not vs. Unusual Defense, but _specifically_ vs. _Limited_ Defense..... Like a big neon sign saying 'Here, now; this'll rack up some dice!' Oh well--- sorry for the digression; moving on---

 

 

 

Some of it, such as the PD/ED division, the purpose of which I feel to be as much a gaming distinction as a SFX one. But the particular points on which I would disagree with you do not change that I agree with your general statement of using mechanics, SFX, and/or circumstances.

 

 

All of them except for the, "rigid covering," which is SFX--it could provide normal PD/ED, Damage Resistance, Armor, Force Wall, and maybe even Force Field depending on how you specifically want to describe it (Non-Persistant plating that the character forces out of his skin, for example; I don't know ).

 

 

I enjoyed this post, actually-- partly for the humorous realization that we've broken up into two camps, each fiercely defending the same thing (Great Scott! We're Baptists! Oh... That probably doesn't work outside the SE USA, does it?), and partly because the examples you've given and quoted all indicate that perhaps the solution is _not_ a new AVLSE Advantage or scrapping the AVLD Advantage, but a small re-write of what's already on the market.

 

Think of it as a combining of AVLD, AVLSE, and NND (which is simply another aspect of AVLSE at this point) into one single, flexible mechanic that does allows each to work more fluidly in game play. Perhaps an AVUD: Attack vs Unusual Defenses. Maybe we should brainstorm on that a bit, and have some guidelines to throw into the pot for 6E, or 5Ev2.0 or whatever happens next......

But definately worth a /!\ (Caution sign) or a <@> (anybody got a better ASC Stop Sign?), certainly.

 

Duke

[prestidigitator]

Re: Avlse

 

5Ev2.0 or whatever happens next......

Heh. Yeah. You mean 5Ev3.0?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Avlse

 

heh heh heh heh heh-----

 

The influence of the software world amuses me:

This isn't #6, becuase it's just some additions and corrections to #5, so it's #5.[seemingly meaningless number here]. But we made some more corrections, so now we've got #5.[first odd number + original meaningless number, total must be greater than original OMN, but not high enough to make #6.anything].

 

Never mind that #5 was merely corrections and additions to #4, which was corrections and addtions to #3, etc.....

 

Thank you software companies! We will never again need the next whole number!

 

[schir1964]

Re: Avlse

 

Actually, I wasn't really trying to defend anything, but needed clarification for presdigitators thoughts. He seemed to be saying two different opposing things, at least that's how it came across to me, and just wanted to make sure I understood what he was actually proposing. (8^D)

 

Glad to see he really wasn't disagreeing with what I mentioned or even Duke Bushido. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Re: Avlse

 

heh heh heh heh heh-----

 

The influence of the software world amuses me:

This isn't #6, becuase it's just some additions and corrections to #5, so it's #5.[seemingly meaningless number here]. But we made some more corrections, so now we've got #5.[first odd number + original meaningless number, total must be greater than original OMN, but not high enough to make #6.anything].

 

Never mind that #5 was merely corrections and additions to #4, which was corrections and addtions to #3, etc.....

 

Thank you software companies! We will never again need the next whole number!

 

 

think it's bad for after-market version numbers... you should see alpha and beta version numbering.... that's a MESS.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Avlse

 

Right you are, Christopher (Chris?).

 

I just finished telling the story to one of my players-- about how we've been bantering the pros and cons of our mutually exclusive viewpoints, only to find out (several days later) that we are in fact all very much in agreement!

 

He's going to let me know when he's done laughing......

[Sean Waters]

Re: Avlse

 

.......

heh heh heh-- sorry about that. It seems that we've all been more or less defending the same position against each other..... :cool:.... Nobody wants to _remove_ AVLD (I don't think; I'm no mind reader :wink: ); we merely want to add a bit more flexibility to it.........Duke

 

 

 

Excellent: a challenge. I don't that that AVLD should be allo.....

 

 

THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST HAS BEEN EXCISED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE BY THE TENSION POLICE, AND, SEAN, WE'RE COMING FOR YOU NEXT

[prestidigitator]

Re: Avlse

 

Actually, I wasn't really trying to defend anything, but needed clarification for presdigitators thoughts. He seemed to be saying two different opposing things, at least that's how it came across to me, and just wanted to make sure I understood what he was actually proposing. (8^D)

 

Glad to see he really wasn't disagreeing with what I mentioned or even Duke Bushido. (8^D)

Fish! I'm never hypocritical, even though I contradict myself all the time.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Avlse

 

heh heh heh heh heh-----

 

The influence of the software world amuses me:

This isn't #6, becuase it's just some additions and corrections to #5, so it's #5.[seemingly meaningless number here]. But we made some more corrections, so now we've got #5.[first odd number + original meaningless number, total must be greater than original OMN, but not high enough to make #6.anything].

 

Never mind that #5 was merely corrections and additions to #4, which was corrections and addtions to #3, etc.....

 

Thank you software companies! We will never again need the next whole number!

Yes, well, I didn't suggest we call it 'hero-1.5.3.0-paper-book.rpg' did I? I'm trying to curb my software engineering tendencies.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Avlse

 

Atta Boy!

 

Let me know if I can help!

 

:rofl:

[zornwil]

Re: Avlse

 

Great topic, Sean.

 

The underlying issue of how much the system should explicate the interaction of SFX is an important one, as SFX are, of course, the visceral link in the play experience to "feeling" the action and towards any sort of common sense resolution of issues, when such is called upon.

 

The idea that the system is pure and divorced from SFX is a silly little fantasy, one which may have been true in the first edition or possibly second to a reasonable point (I'd have to dig back through and am at work, but let's grant for the moment that Limitations for SFX and the like remained reasonably "pure" in that they really were left wide open to interpretation and stayed at arms length from really requiring systemic exploration), but flew out the window of reality with Life Support's ongoing increased detailing, became a faint echo from a distant dimension with the increasing role (and therefore exploration of the nuances) of Adjustment powers, and finally was killed off from any connection to reality with "Variable SFX".

 

At its core, Hero has embedded SFX with things such as PD and ED, although there's a reasonable argument that these are actually simply gamist elements and as such don't themselves require SFX as mechanical entities, they could be replaced with "Defense 1" and "Defense 2", as it were.

 

Anyway, while the system has (in my opinion incorrectly from day one) allowed for NND constructs such as "not vs Force Fields" or the like, I can understand where the idea of hanging SFX directly onto NND as being sufficient has fallen by the wayside, but I for one believe that in fact NND is perfect for SFX-based defenses. The "problem", of course, is ensuring it's really reasonably valued at +1, and more esoteric SFX should require a greater Advantage. More on that in a moment.

 

I believe that early on the purpose of NND was to be something that "anyone" could counter but would require some preparation and/or providence on their part, although sadly I can't back that up at the moment (and am prepared to be incorrect) and the current wording is quite clear on "a reasonably common power" as a valid defense. But I have always preferred that on some level NND be a non-exclusive arrangement in that it isn't something closed to supers and high-level agents or the like only, and I use a test that an NND has to be something that even a normal person could pull off a protection against with some ingenuity and a visit to Wal-mart, Home Depot, or Office Depot, that sort of thing.

 

While I have not yet encountered NNDs that were more restrictive than this (of course, understand that I have enforced this bar, so what I truly mean is that nobody has pushed back with an NND that is significantly more difficult to counter), I'd probably go up by 1/4 if it were something that would only be in the realm of supers and high-powered organizations to counter (if such were the common enemy in the campaign, that is, in a world where such were rare I'd up that again to the next category) and by 1/2 if it were something requiring only the most specialized agencies and unusual supers to counter.

 

In theory I could see that it might be good for standard NND to be filled out with some sort of values for higher levels of difficulty, but I think it could also be better just to leave this to individual GMs as needed since anything beyond the core Advantage is probably unusual enough and potentially unbalancing enough not to be a concern of the standard rules and left to case-by-case examination.

 

One reason I'd probably not go to +2 is that the big downfall of NND is that opponents get used to it. Any decent villain (which of course already discounts most of the loonies!) who expects to go up against a known super learns of and prepares for the NND, and supers often waste a first shot and realize they can't use it. Happened in our last supers battle, the villain head of the org who planned the encounter certainly was well-prepared for our team's acidic NND character, coating herself with a watery make-up base (made for a lovely sheen on Alice, Queen of Hearts - yes, I swiped her from SAS). So often +2 is just too much for even a highly-effective NND.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Avlse

 

One reason I'd probably not go to +2 is that the big downfall of NND is that opponents get used to it. Any decent villain (which of course already discounts most of the loonies!) who expects to go up against a known super learns of and prepares for the NND' date=' and supers often waste a first shot and realize they can't use it. Happened in our last supers battle, the villain head of the org who planned the encounter certainly was well-prepared for our team's acidic NND character, coating herself with a watery make-up base (made for a lovely sheen on Alice, Queen of Hearts - yes, I swiped her from SAS). So often +2 is just too much for even a highly-effective NND.[/quote']

Ah, but AVLD is something different entirely, because it doesn't have NND's all-or-nothing mechanics. You not only must meet the requirements of AVLD, but you must meet them with enough defenses to be reasonably effective. That means, for example, that the target not only must have, "some kind of force field," but must have enough ED through that force field that he can, in fact, have an adequate defense against the attack (and even then the attack may do some damage). It is also pointless to buy things like Armor Piercing and Penetrating for a NND because it simply has no effect at all if the proper conditions are met. Buying such defense-bypassing Advantages for an AVLD, on the other hand, is quite valid and useful (although expensive).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Avlse

 

In a low powered game, AVLD and NND are often synonymous - the target rarely has the requied defence as defences are fewer. In a high powered game, NND and AVLD become less useful as people pick up force field rings and power defence and life support and so on.

 

Not sure how that relates to the present discussion, but I felt a need to say it

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Avlse

 

Another good topic Sean - I've stopped repping you - I don't get around to repping enough other people to keep up with the number of times I want to rep you...

 

Anyway, I enjoyed reading the thread but I have one question that may reduce the utility of the advantage or may not.

 

If you have a EB AVLSE (Heat) and your target has a Flame Force Field and Lavaskin Armour would the defences add for the purposes of defence against the EB?

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Avlse

 

I'd say 'yes' - there's nothing in the idea that would prevent ANY relevant defence being taken into account. Makes you a bit of a sitting duck for the EB AVLSE (cold) though

 

RE rep: thank you for your kind words. I put it down to the scattershot approach. Or the infinite monkey one....

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Avlse

 

I'd say 'yes' - there's nothing in the idea that would prevent ANY relevant defence being taken into account. Makes you a bit of a sitting duck for the EB AVLSE (cold) though

 

 

But surely that's why my standard defence package now contains a 10 point variable sfx force field....

 

 

You might want to change the costs of that in a campaign where people have AVLSE

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Avlse

 

But surely that's why my standard defence package now contains a 10 poitn variable sfx force field....

 

 

You might want to change the costs of that in a campaign where people have AVLSE

 

Doc

 

Borg shields! Maybe i'll have to let them modulate the frequency!

 

It souldn't be too much of a problem: an AVLSE is unlikely to be the only attack a blaster has, and if he alternates it with a straight EB it becomes a game of chess.....what fun!