I know I have seen this lim before

[Ura-Maru]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Only to make a half move: This limitation cuts the effectiveness of your power exactly in half. In effect, you are only getting to use +3" of your +6" of movement that you purchased.

 

No, you haven’t. The vast majority of combat movement is half moves.

 

For the same reason a hero doesn’t get –1 for an ‘Only works vs. villains’ attack power. Sure, there may be as many heroes as villains, but the vast majority of the time, he’s not going to be shooting at them.

 

And I’m not buying that ‘no noncombat movement’ is worth –1/2, whatever it says, anywhere. I’ve gone entire campaigns where no one ever used noncombat movement.

 

By itself, I’d give it –1/4, or -5 points, whichever came first. Combined with ‘half moves only’, it’s not worth anything at all. Both because it’s just not a significant enough limitation, and because I don’t think there’s such a thing as a half noncombat movement.

 

The extra movement with, Only for Half Moves, "Limitation," is thus a totally extreme version of metagaming and breaks a metarule very heavily in my mind. I don't allow it at all. There. Easy. The extra movement with, Only for Half Moves, "Limitation," is thus a totally extreme version of metagaming and breaks a metarule very heavily in my mind. I don't allow it at all. There. Easy.

 

Is buying +5†of running for the same number of points, and get more movement (at the cost of style) acceptable?

 

---

“Moving . . . faster! . . . Talking . . .slower!â€

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Hmm. Going to have to disagree with you a bit there.

 

'Salwright! I'm getting used to it.

 

There's nothing in Move By to say you have to move toward your opponent.

 

I can't argue with you, at least not right now-- no time, and no book (my player picked his copy back up, and mine is still awaiting the move). But for the record, your examples agree with me:

 

In fact' date=' one of the most common ways I've seen it used is by someone who wishes to attack and then continue to run like crazy! It is the knight's attack with a lance,[/quote']

 

Would that be the Knight that runs parallel to his target and jabs at him with the lance, the Knight that runs away from his opponent and throws the lance, or the Knight that runs _directly toward_ his opponent and hopes to add his move-by momentum to the attack?

 

heh heh heh heh----

 

sorry; I'm really not rashing you, I swear. But when you posted examples that agreed with me by way of disagreeing with me, well, the prankster in me came out to play. I swear, I couldn't help myself.

 

or the dragon's swoop; an attack that keeps the attacker out of reach.

 

Again, more briefly:

Is the dragon swooping away from his target, or towards him?

 

It is the one way you can really move after you attack' date=' and does offer some drawbacks (OCV, DCV, Str for weapons) to compensate.[/quote']

 

Right. And for the record, before anyone assumes otherwise, I _do_ use move-by and move-through rules as written. As Presti--- Man, that's hard to type-- digitator pointed out, there are times when you full move _as part of_ an attack. There are rules for that. I agree with them.

 

The 'running only for half moves' thing doesn't really play by those rules. I mean, for move-throughs, you'd still take the CV penalties for doing a move-by /through-- maneuvers which by definition mean that you are moving directly at your target, but take absolutley no penalties for running one way and shooting another. Doesn't sit well.

 

The system I described above, the one that puts you at 0 OCV, has some flexibilty. If you want to retain your full CV, then roll a die every hex that you are running to determine what direction that step is taken in. You can't focus in two directions. Careful, cause you might move-through a lamp post. Okay, jokes aside, I don't use it for move-by / through or even move-toward. (This being the as-far-as-I-know-unnamed maneuver generally reffered to as 'closing quarters.' That is to say, an opponent is 20" away, and you want to move your full 6" run directly towards him_and_ fire on him, well I don't see any reason why you can't. I apply normal move-by / through penalties for that.

 

But if you want to run in one direction and shoot in another and not trip, hit a wall, or fire blindly, you will be at 0 base OCV to do so. Use the Force, or whatever skill levels you've got, sure. No problem. After all, you bought them to demonstrate how much better than 'normal' you were in the first place, right?

 

If I was unclear and lead anyone to believe that I assigned unusual CV penalties for move-by, etc, then that is my own fault; I appologize.

 

Of course, it also implies that you'd think I was crazy enough to do it......

 

 

Hmmmmm.........

 

Woah! Hey! I should be _insulted_, not appologetic!

 

Anyway, I got to run upcountry. See y'all next week!

[prestidigitator]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

But if you want to run in one direction and shoot in another and not trip, hit a wall, or fire blindly, you will be at 0 base OCV to do so. Use the Force, or whatever skill levels you've got, sure. No problem. After all, you bought them to demonstrate how much better than 'normal' you were in the first place, right?

 

If I was unclear and lead anyone to believe that I assigned unusual CV penalties for move-by, etc, then that is my own fault; I appologize.

Ah! Gotcha. I think I did misunderstand a bit there. I think it is certainly reasonable to place some kind of limitations or necessary rolls to attack in a direction vastly different from that in which you are travelling. Of course, the problem with this is that Running has no Turn Mode ( ), which means you can turn on a dime, fire, and turn on a dime again to continue in the same direction you were going. IMHO this is a problem with Movement and Turn Modes, not with your solution.

 

EDIT: See ya!

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

that movement and turn mode thing can bite you in the keester if you're not looking where you're going! That was the basis of why I put up the 'die of direction' joke.

 

And if you're just wondering, the best way I have found to avoid the "I move; I shoot; I move again" thing when characters are full-move attacking is to require that the attack be made at the end of the full move.

 

Not particularly realistic in ---what's the word? Not symbolic. Crud. A very basic role-playing word: like 'representational,' but different. Man this is embarrasing.......

 

(Forgive me. I mentioned before that years ago I got a good concussion in a racing accident. Generally I just have problems tracking elapsed time, but occaisionally I forget words. Not too often, but enough to be annoying.....)

 

Anyway, it's not an accurate

 

SIMULATION! That's it! Simulation!

 

Not an accurate simulation of what's actually happening when you move _and_ fire, but by the same token 'SPD v Phase' is not a completely accurate simulation of how a fight works. But they are both useful mechanics for orderly play, and it stops abuses.

 

 

Anyway, I'll see y'all later!

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

No' date=' you haven’t. The vast majority of combat movement is half moves.[/quote']

 

Sure. In combat. How about outside of combat, where extra movement would come in handy, but you can't use it. Trying to catch a fast villian? Extra movement only for half-moves isn't going to help. Trying to outrun a tidal wave? No help. Tying to get to your girlfriend before a 6 ton boulder can crush her to death? No help at all.

 

My point? Combat is not the be-all, end-all of character creation or the guidelines for how much something should cost. Movement has uses outside as well as within combat. severely limiting its use outside of combat is definately worth a significant limitation. That is assuming your games do occasionally consist of something other than combat...

 

For the same reason a hero doesn’t get –1 for an ‘Only works vs. villains’ attack power. Sure, there may be as many heroes as villains, but the vast majority of the time, he’s not going to be shooting at them.

 

Why not? Only vs Evil is a valid limitation in many Fantasy games, and most characters in fantasy games aren't going to be assaulting anyone they view as "good"...

 

And I’m not buying that ‘no noncombat movement’ is worth –1/2, whatever it says, anywhere. I’ve gone entire campaigns where no one ever used noncombat movement.

 

No one has ever chased someone or something in your campaigns? No one has ever had to race against the clock? No one has ever had to try and reach an innocent before the Grim Reaper?

 

 

By itself, I’d give it –1/4, or -5 points, whichever came first. Combined with ‘half moves only’, it’s not worth anything at all. Both because it’s just not a significant enough limitation, and because I don’t think there’s such a thing as a half noncombat movement.

 

You can make a half-move using Noncombat movement and still attack. You are simply at the penalties for using Noncombat movement as listed in the book (1/2 DCV and 0 OCV if I remember correctly)

 

Is buying +5†of running for the same number of points, and get more movement (at the cost of style) acceptable?

 

Absolutely! Its limited because its not making you any faster, which is the purpose of buying additional movement. This simply makes you more mobile and accurate while being mobile, thats all. Thats seems pretty limited to me. Then again, my games include scenes where we use movement and other abilities while not in combat, so that may be the difference in our perspectives.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Sure. In combat. How about outside of combat, where extra movement would come in handy, but you can't use it. Trying to catch a fast villian? Extra movement only for half-moves isn't going to help. Trying to outrun a tidal wave? No help. Tying to get to your girlfriend before a 6 ton boulder can crush her to death? No help at all.

 

My point? Combat is not the be-all, end-all of character creation or the guidelines for how much something should cost.

 

You are absolutely right: it should not be the be-all, end-all, but when you look at most of the examples in the book, it becomes evident that it is.

 

 

I don't like it; I don't use it. But that's also why I don't post characters, etc----

My group is out of tilt with the 'combat effectiveness' slant that started back in BBB.

 

There is more to being a Hero than Pounding a Villain.

 

But look at the construction of the power in question:

Only for half-moves.

 

Where do you use half-moves? In combat. This power was designed _specifically_ _for_ _combat_. And with that in mind, not being able to use it outside of combat is not going to be very limiting at all.

 

 

Crud!

 

I've been here an hour, and I logged on for a 'quick peek.'

 

I really, really, mean it--

 

I'm out!

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

There seems to be a logic error in the last post, simply put it sounds like he (and others are saying):

 

This Construct is obviously designed for use in combat

 

It should not be limited because it will only be used it combat

 

 

The problem with this logic is movement powers are not strait combat powers, for that matter a combat power still deserves some lim for only in combat (probably a -1/4 max for a attack like EB/RKA, as it prevents using it to blow up an inanimate object out of a fight)

 

I think people who are saying only -1/4 have way to much combat in there games...

[Duke Bushido]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

like EB/RKA' date=' as it prevents using it to blow up an inanimate object out of a fight)[/quote']

 

 

Which, by default, is combat.

 

Initiative, Phase 12, 'sneak ambush,' whatever you want to call it; it's combat.

 

One-sided, perhaps. Long-range, perhaps. Sucker attack on totally unsuspecting targets, sure.

 

But combat.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Which' date=' by default, is combat.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...not from where I'm standing. When I think of "Combat" I think of something that can hit you back. Shooting your EB to blow a hole in the wall of a vault before the people trapped inside suffocate to death is not combat. An action scene, yes, but not combat.

 

Initiative, Phase 12, 'sneak ambush,' whatever you want to call it; it's combat.

 

The opening move of a combat sure. But I don't consider combat to have begun until both parties involved are aware that there is a combat. Thats why the 5th edition has an "Out of Combat" adjustment to CV and Stun damage.

 

One-sided, perhaps. Long-range, perhaps. Sucker attack on totally unsuspecting targets, sure.

 

But combat.

 

Actually, according to 5E, thats considered "Out of Combat"

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

You are absolutely right: it should not be the be-all' date=' end-all, but when you look at most of the examples in the book, it becomes evident that it is.[/quote']

 

Thats why I don't pay any attention to many book examples. They are oftentimes overly simplistic and heavily combat oriented.

 

My group is out of tilt with the 'combat effectiveness' slant that started back in BBB.

 

Yeah, so is mine, but then again, I do some things very differently from many others, so it might even out in the end. (I used Sweep in the manner it is used in the 5th Edition, but I started doing this back in the 4th edition days. I got a lot of flack within the Message boards for suggesting using it in that way)

 

There is more to being a Hero than Pounding a Villain.

 

We agree on this!

 

But look at the construction of the power in question:

Only for half-moves.

 

But I'm looking at the purpose of the Movement Power in general, which is to move you from A to B at X velocity, in Y manner.

 

Where do you use half-moves? In combat. This power was designed _specifically_ _for_ _combat_. And with that in mind, not being able to use it outside of combat is not going to be very limiting at all.

 

You can use half-moves outside of combat as well, depending on the situation. There are many uses of Phased Turns outside of combat, where time, movement and distance are of the utmost importance. An example of which I mentioned above. Our Heroes girlfriend has twisted her ankle and can't move and there is a boulder 30" above her and falling. Our Hero is going to try a Grab-by on her to rescue her before the boulder crushes her. He begins 25" away. He is SPD 6 with a running movement of 6"/12". He has the power Highly Mobile: +6" (12) Only to make 1/2 move and No NCM. We begin on Segment 12. Our Hero goes full out Non Combat...12". The boulder falls 5". The Girlfriend screams.

Segment 1: The boulder falls another 10" for a total of 15"

Segment 2: Our Hero runs balls-out another 12" for a total of 24"...almost there!

Segment 2: The boulder falls another 15" +15" for a total of 30".

 

Our Hero watches as his girlfriend is killed right before his eyes! (30D6 vs PD 2. SPLAT)

 

"WHY!?!?" he screams, dropping to his knees. "WHY Didn't I just buy the extra movement? Why?"

 

In this case, the extra for half moves....completely useless, where full movement would've allowed him to save his girlfriend.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Trying to catch a fast villian? Extra movement only for half-moves isn't going to help. Trying to outrun a tidal wave? No help. Tying to get to your girlfriend before a 6 ton boulder can crush her to death? No help at all.

And how often is that going to matter? Out of, say, 10 games, how often will you actually be limited by this? Maybe twice?

 

vs. how many half moves did you make during those 10 games?

 

Sounds like –1/4 to me. Or –1/2 if you run a lot. –1 is a BIG limitation.

 

If you really think combat and non-combat movement should cost the same, why do you allow doubling NCM for five points?

 

Why not? Only vs Evil is a valid limitation in many Fantasy games, and most characters in fantasy games aren't going to be assaulting anyone they view as "good"...

I didn’t say they couldn’t take it, I said it wasn’t worth –1. It was an analogy. ‘While from a pure numerical perspective, this reduces the effectiveness by half, in practice it’s almost no limitation at all’

 

My point? Combat is not the be-all, end-all of character creation or the guidelines for how much something should cost. Movement has uses outside as well as within combat. severely limiting its use outside of combat is definately worth a significant limitation. That is assuming your games do occasionally consist of something other than combat...

 

I guess that’s better than ‘This is about ROLE PLAYING, not WINNING! How DARE you even bring up balance issues!' But not much.

 

Yes, people have chased people in my games, but generally across rooftops, through alleys and caves, or in traffic, and usually with at least some danger that someone might shoot back.

 

I have never tracked phases outside of combat when ‘racing the clock.’

 

I have had characters running madly to get to the bad guys, but generally I’ve estimated how far they were and how long it would take everyone to get there. I have never said ‘You’re 12,593 inches away. How long does it take you to get there?’

 

I’ve had people make mad NCM dashes from combat, but generally, either they get away because one side can’t pursue, or they get chased, at which point we’re usually not using NCM anymore.

 

I cannot, however, recall a single situation where moving an extra +6†noncombat would have made a significant difference, though I do remember it being used from time to time. I can recall several cases where a bigger full move would have helped a lot . . . but not enough to be worth a –1 disadvantage.

 

I’m not arguing it’s not worth a limitation at all. I’m arguing that it’s not worth –1.

 

---

The last bit (with the +5†Running) was to Prestidigitator and Duke Bushido, not you. They’re arguing it’s not worth anything. You’re arguing it’s worth –1. I think you’re all dangerous extremists.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

The last bit (with the +5†Running) was to Prestidigitator and Duke Bushido' date=' not you. They’re arguing it’s not worth anything. You’re arguing it’s worth –1. I think you’re all dangerous extremists. [/quote']

 

Well, I only say its -1 because of the combination of No NCM (-1/2) and Only to make 1/2 Move (-1/2)

 

I think No NCM is worth -1/2 all by itself. Add "Only to make 1/2 move" to that and you've got a limitation of at least -3/4. I myself believe -1 to be completely reasonable.

 

For someone buying +6" Running, No NCM (-1/2) Only for 1/2 Move (-1/2) you are paying 6pts for +3" of movement, because (unless you push it) thats all you'll ever get out of that power. +3", no more. I wouldn't charge someone 10pts for 3" of movement. They might as well just take the full +6" of movement and slap a X2 END cost on it. It'd be cheaper, and they'd get 6" of Combat move like they want, and get more full move and NonCombat Move as well.

[pinecone]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

The item was in Dark champs...when I saw it I took an immeadiate liking to it...I usually title it "Tactical wizardry" because I see this move boost as a way to simulate the tactical wizardry of super normals like the Bat and the like...he can move 9", he can move 9' as a full move or he can move up to 9" and do something...thats a real cool thing, and seems Very "comic book" to me....in comics there aren't any maps or hexes, but in a game its a nice way to show off....

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

The item was in Dark champs...when I saw it I took an immeadiate liking to it...I usually title it "Tactical wizardry" because I see this move boost as a way to simulate the tactical wizardry of super normals like the Bat and the like...he can move 9"' date=' he can move 9' as a full move or he can move up to 9" and do something...thats a real cool thing, and seems Very "comic book" to me....in comics there aren't any maps or hexes, but in a game its a nice way to show off....[/quote']

 

Yeah, its perfect for people like Bats, Nightwing, Cap etc, without having to buy their movement into the Supernormal levels, which they are not. This way you get a character who's all over the battlefield, taking out enemies left and right. He's over there! No, wait, he's over there! Fred? Fred, answer me!

 

"Behind you!" (PRE Attack)

 

"AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!" (soils britches)

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Without bothering with all the debate, I'll just say that I in general like this construct as a clever way of making a character who, as a result of superior combat training can move all out and stil act.

 

That said, YES, I can see where it can have some potentially unbalancing applications because it does bypass one of the core combat rules.

 

Isn't that kinda of flexibility why we play HERO?

And isn't this kind of concern why we have GM's?

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Well, I think the answer is pretty straightforward: we reverse engineer the problem. The character can have 'only to make half moves in combat' at -1 limitation, but has to realise that -1 is a hefty limit. Situations where that extra few inches of straight running would be useful are going to come up A LOT, about every other session in fact. It should be more: every other phase, but who's got the time? ActionInMotion (AIM) will get through a lot of girfriends, and a lot of 6 ton boulders.

 

For the record*, and whilst we can always argue about what 'in combat' means, Hero mechanics are mainly built for combat simulation and most of the powers and limitations reflect, in their cost, their utilty in combat. I mean, the ability to travel at FTL speeds starts at 10 points.

 

You can argue that 'out of combat' is just as important to the mechanics as 'in combat', but you might want to re-cost just about everything, if you really believe that.

 

 

 

*Yeah, right, Sean: like your word is official.

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

SLAPS forehead*

 

I think I know what has been bothering me about the +6" only for half moves: it is the "+"

 

I can't quite work out why but I'd be far happier with +6" running, then a limit on the WHOLE of the running 'only to make half moves'

 

You wind up with the same result, yeah?

 

A what cost?

 

Well, if you have a -1 limitation, it works out like this:

 

+6" running 12 points

-1 limitation on 24 points worth of running = -12 points

 

Net cost ZERO.

 

So, I reckon the limitation has to be less than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*yeah: big target....

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Some fun with math, limiting the whole 12", and subtracting the 12 for selling back running

 

-1/4 19 points - 7 Points after

-1/2 16 Points - 4 points after

-3/4 14 Points - 2 Points after

-1 12 Points - 0 Points After

 

Limiting just the 6"

-1/4 10 Points

-1/2 8 Points

-3/4 7 Points

-1 6 Points

 

So limiting the whole thing as a -1/4 is equivelent to a -3/4 lim. More I look the more I agree that it is a -1 on just the add on, or -1/4 on the whole thing

[Ura-Maru]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Lets try to isolate the disagreement.

 

a) When you make a half move, you get the full benefit that 6†of movement would get you. +3†to your half move. Under these circumstances, you are not limited at all.

 

When you make a full move, you get no benefit. Under these circumstances, you are limited.

 

c) Point A comes into effect several times a session.

 

d) Point B comes into effect considerably less often

 

e) Therefore, the power is not limited far more often than it is limited.

 

f) So, it’s not worth –1.

 

At what point are we disagreeing?

 

Sure, you can give me a forced example where having the limitation gives a very bad result. You can do that with ANY limitation at all. (Well, except for x2 End for martial artists and bricks. And ‘Real Weapon,’ usually. Those are freebees)

 

You can’t just say, ‘well, at most it gives you half the numerical value.’ That’s meaningless, if you don’t take into account how often it comes up, and how limiting it is when it does.

 

Say I buy 8/8, armor, and give the top half a 15- activation roll. On a 15-, it gives the same protection as 4/4 Armor. That doesn’t make the limitation worth –1, though.

 

---

“A man’s got to know his limits . . .â€

[JmOz]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

My characters tend to make ALOT of full moves outside of combat, also he does not tend to move around much in combat (He is a ranged combatant so normaly he does not need to move towards the enemy)...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

So limiting the whole thing as a -1/4 is equivelent to a -3/4 lim. More I look the more I agree that it is a -1 on just the add on' date=' or -1/4 on the whole thing[/quote']

 

-1 on the addition just feels wrong. Why?

 

FIRST

 

+24" Running, only for half moves (-1) for 24 points. 15" half move (in theory, 18" full move since your 6" base wasn't limited)

 

+12" running, 24 points. for 24 points 9" half move; 18" full move.

 

THEN

 

+54" running, only for half moves for 54 points; 30" half move

 

+27" running; 54 points; 17" half move and 33" full move

 

FINALLY

 

20" flight 40 points 10" half move 20" full move

 

40" flight only for half moves (-1) 40 points 20" full or half move

 

As to the magnitude of the limitation, I agree it's campaign specific. However, I suggest you track a few game sessions' moves. How many are half moves, and how many are full moves? Then set the limitation greater than -1/2 if you see any viable way to justify that. I'd say -1/4, but I agree it's more limiting than "no noncombat multiple"

 

To the "crushed girlfriend" example, this is a game. If I want her to be 3" too far away, as GM that's where I will put her. If I want her to be just within your reach, again that is where she will be. Just as, if someone buys Megascale movement and a means of carrying the team with him, I will plan my scenarios differently than if no one has this ability.

 

Or do others have game nights that go "Well, Eurostar just attacked Belgrave. Too bad you're in central Kansas and no one has megascale movement. See you all next week?"

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Some fun with math, limiting the whole 12", and subtracting the 12 for selling back running

 

-1/4 19 points - 7 Points after

-1/2 16 Points - 4 points after

-3/4 14 Points - 2 Points after

-1 12 Points - 0 Points After

 

Limiting just the 6"

-1/4 10 Points

-1/2 8 Points

-3/4 7 Points

-1 6 Points

 

So limiting the whole thing as a -1/4 is equivelent to a -3/4 lim. More I look the more I agree that it is a -1 on just the add on, or -1/4 on the whole thing

 

Good thinking.

 

The clear winner is -1/4 or -3/4 (NOT -1!). I would rather stick with the single limit on the whole as the figures do shift if you buy the advantage asymetrically (for instance if you add 12" only to make half moves, a bizarre construct, but who knows....then the limitation for the part limit slides closer to -0.5)

[Sean Waters]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

-1 on the addition just feels wrong. Why?

 

FIRST

 

+24" Running, only for half moves (-1) for 24 points. 15" half move (in theory, 18" full move since your 6" base wasn't limited)

 

+12" running, 24 points. for 24 points 9" half move; 18" full move.

 

 

+24" for half moves only: a 15" half move, a 6" full move. Makes no sense to me

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

Lets try to isolate the disagreement.

 

a) When you make a half move, you get the full benefit that 6†of movement would get you. +3†to your half move. Under these circumstances, you are not limited at all.

 

When you make a full move, you get no benefit. Under these circumstances, you are limited.

 

c) Point A comes into effect several times a session.

 

d) Point B comes into effect considerably less often

 

e) Therefore, the power is not limited far more often than it is limited.

 

f) So, it’s not worth –1.

 

At what point are we disagreeing?

 

Sure, you can give me a forced example where having the limitation gives a very bad result. You can do that with ANY limitation at all. (Well, except for x2 End for martial artists and bricks. And ‘Real Weapon,’ usually. Those are freebees)

 

You can’t just say, ‘well, at most it gives you half the numerical value.’ That’s meaningless, if you don’t take into account how often it comes up, and how limiting it is when it does.

 

Say I buy 8/8, armor, and give the top half a 15- activation roll. On a 15-, it gives the same protection as 4/4 Armor. That doesn’t make the limitation worth –1, though.

 

---

“A man’s got to know his limits . . .â€

 

I think this is an unsolvable debate.

 

Why?

 

Because your Points "C" and "D" would depend on several variable factors:

 

1) Depends on the player: Some players may build characters who move around a lot (me) some players may build characters who move around very little (JMOZ) and some players may fall in between the two.

 

2) Depends on the campaign: Some campaigns have lots of combat, where the power in question is only slightly limited. Some campaigns have much less combat, where its lack of non-combat applications make it more limited.

 

3) Depends on the GM: Some GM's go out of their way to provide challenges for the players where the advantages and limitations of their characters powers come into play, in which case, it would definately be more limited. Some GM's simply run their scenario without regard to the PC's specifics and in this case, the power would be less limited.

 

Lets just say in one of my campaigns, that would easily be worth a -1 Limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

 

+24" for half moves only: a 15" half move' date=' a 6" full move. Makes no sense to me [/quote']

 

The sfx of the ability as initially described is that the character has a full move of 6", and can act as a combatant with no penalties while making it. The example character above has the same ability, but has an enhanced running speed which makes his full move 15". The boost just allows him to make a full move of running and still be able to take a second half phase action.