Which villain needs an overhaul?

[Hermit]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

Well, I think Istvatha maybe one of those exceptions to the otherwise Iron Age feel of CKC, she definitely strikes me as more silver/bronze. But YMMV

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

I would have to respectfully disagree that the tone of the official CU is predominantly iron age. Certainly there are some ruthless vigilantes, murderous villains, and monsters; but the majority of villains that I've seen are primarily interested in getting rich, stomping on heroes or "conquering the world," classic Silver and Bronze Age motivations. Very few of the heroes are comfortable with killing, and AFAICT (although I admit I haven't formally tallied all the published Champs books) the majority of supervillains are not casual killers. The Paranormal Registration Act is described in Champions Universe as essentially "toothless." Heck, the CU even has superintelligent gorillas.

 

On the V'han front, I do think that the negative assessments of her strategic capabilities based on published sources are a little harsh. According to her writeup in Conquerors, Killers And Crooks, she'd known of Champions Earth for dozens of years, but held off invading it because of the high concentration of superbeings. That certainly implies advance scouting. She made a total of three attacks in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The first two were repulsed (they might charitably be described as test-runs), but the third was on the verge of success when Istvatha made the tactical error of coming to Earth herself before it was completely pacified, allowing heroes the opportunity to capture her - which is really the sort of exceptional accomplishment that heroes in comics are supposed to do to save the day. As I mentioned previously, her invasion of Earth and its allies in 3000 AC was a tactical tour-de-force, defeated only through the use of a (almost literal) deus ex machina.

 

The D-Soldiers described in CKC are explicitly called the basic "grunts" of her forces, inferior to her specialized troops. I agree that it would be better to have some of those elites described, but if necessary there are now lots of other "agent" writeups that we could adapt. CKC specifically suggests modifying the appearance of any of the other characters in the book to make them superhumans in her service.

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

I agree with you that her /third/ invasion attempt was a very respectable effort indeed... which is exactly why I haven't said a word against it.

 

However, her first and second attempts are demonstrably inadequate, to put it mildly.

 

And if we go with your reasonable surmise that she did years of advance scouting before attacking, then they're even more pitiful -- it's bad enough to attack with inadequate intelligence, but when you /have/ adequate intelligence and /still/ come in unprepared and in insufficient strength, well, that's just right down there with Invader Zim, really.

[Prometheus]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

On the V'han front, I do think that the negative assessments of her strategic capabilities based on published sources are a little harsh. According to her writeup in Conquerors, Killers And Crooks, she'd known of Champions Earth for dozens of years, but held off invading it because of the high concentration of superbeings. That certainly implies advance scouting. She made a total of three attacks in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The first two were repulsed (they might charitably be described as test-runs), but the third was on the verge of success when Istvatha made the tactical error of coming to Earth herself before it was completely pacified, allowing heroes the opportunity to capture her - which is really the sort of exceptional accomplishment that heroes in comics are supposed to do to save the day. As I mentioned previously, her invasion of Earth and its allies in 3000 AC was a tactical tour-de-force, defeated only through the use of a (almost literal) deus ex machina.

 

And there is also no way of knowing how many times she's actually conquered the Earth dimension, but had it all invalidated, ala Justice League's Savage Time or JLA's Rock of Ages.

 

 

The D-Soldiers described in CKC are explicitly called the basic "grunts" of her forces, inferior to her specialized troops. I agree that it would be better to have some of those elites described, but if necessary there are now lots of other "agent" writeups that we could adapt. CKC specifically suggests modifying the appearance of any of the other characters in the book to make them superhumans in her service.

 

Really, that's her biggest problem- V'han needs to learn how to delegate. The way she's written up right now, she's just too much of a micromanager. Who's to say what she could accomplish with a few cronies, or an heir or two?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

I agree with you that her /third/ invasion attempt was a very respectable effort indeed... which is exactly why I haven't said a word against it.

 

However, her first and second attempts are demonstrably inadequate, to put it mildly.

 

And if we go with your reasonable surmise that she did years of advance scouting before attacking, then they're even more pitiful -- it's bad enough to attack with inadequate intelligence, but when you /have/ adequate intelligence and /still/ come in unprepared and in insufficient strength, well, that's just right down there with Invader Zim, really.

 

"Demonstrably inadequate?" Hmm... in the final analysis I suppose that's true, because her first two attempts failed. But then, all of Istvatha's attempted conquests of Earth failed. Alien and dimensional conquerors always ultimately fail in the comic books, because that's what they're there for - to be defeated by the heroes', er, heroism. The courage, determination and unpredictability of superheroes, their ability to rise to whatever challenge they face, always does in the would-be worldbeaters in the end.

 

To be fair, we don't actually know what the circumstances of V'han's two first failures at Earthly conquest were. All we're told is that she was repulsed, but not how or at what cost. It seems that she learned from each failure, and came back better prepared the next time. In the year 3000 she invaded with overwhelming force and near-flawless strategy. And she still lost.

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

> "Demonstrably inadequate?" Hmm... in the final analysis I suppose

> that's true, because her first two attempts failed. But then, all of

> Istvatha's attempted conquests of Earth failed.

 

Yes, but the reason the last one failed was an /understandable/ mistake... one that, while it was an error, isn't a damning indictment of the competence of the person who made it. Stuff just happened.

 

The other ones, however...

 

[snip]

> To be fair, we don't actually know what the circumstances of V'han's

> two first failures at Earthly conquest were.

 

The #'s on those troop writeups is a big clue.

 

> All we're told is that she was repulsed, but not how or at what cost.

 

The cost is unlikely to have been that great... CU mentioned it when large #'s of heroes died, given the attention lavished on enumerating the death toll of Takofanes' first rampage, the Warlord's lifetime kill count, and (of course) the Battle of Detroit. The attempted invasions of Istvatha V'Han, on the other hand, were treated in the timeline as 'same stuff, different aliens', and not with any 'this was a really dark day!' text whatsoever.

 

> It seems that she learned from each failure, and came back better

> prepared the next time.

 

That would explain the first one, but not the second one.

 

[snip]

> In the year 3000 she invaded with overwhelming force and

> near-flawless strategy. And she still lost.

 

... because in the interim, humanity had gone from a primitive species on one planet to an advanced starfaring culture spread throughout the galaxy. If she'd used even a /tenth/ of the force level from the 3000 invasion(1) in one of her 20th century attempts, we'd have been hammered flat like nails.

 

Losing the first couple of rounds and coming back prepared is nice. Not losing the first couple of rounds is even nicer.

 

 

 

 

(1) And given that said force level was 'overwhelming' to a galactic culture, and she'd be attacking just one planet, me saying 'a tenth' is probably way overdoing it.

[Starlord]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

- I don't get what all the fuss is about. From a perspective as vast as hers seems to be, it seems pretty obvious that the offensives so far have been mere probing strikes to gauge the strengths/weaknesses of the native resistance in this dimension. Probably standard practice using her weaker, 'dispensable' soldiers. If not, well, overconfidence that vast is certainly stupid, but I'm sure everyone in this thread knows that's a standard in-genre convention for master villains. It doesn't have to be explained. Is there any actual proof (from her POV) that she was actually trying to CONQUER our dimension with these attacks? Perhaps from the defender's perspective we just assume so.

 

- I'd grant the CU elements of all the comic book ages leaning the most towards Bronze, but maybe we need a poll?

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

> I don't get what all the fuss is about. From a perspective as vast as

> hers seems to be, it seems pretty obvious that the offensives so far

> have been mere probing strikes to gauge the strengths/weaknesses of

> the native resistance in this dimension.

 

In my case, it's because if you're wrong, she's a blithering idiot. And if she's right, she's simply love-tapping and not bothering to apply any fraction of her real power.

 

Either way, that means the planet my character lives on is still alive only because the villain simply isn't trying. And that if the villain ever actually did try, we'd get crushed like ants.

 

Dunno about you, but that really kinda takes the ol' sense of achievement away for me.

 

And then there's also my sheer aesthetic displeasure at her horrible lack of worksmanship...

 

> Probably standard practice using her weaker, 'dispensable' soldiers.

 

As well as my longstanding dislike of such methods. Especially on somebody who's supposed to be an ethical tyrant, or at least, so it says in her advance billing. Consistency between backstory, stats, and recent history is also something I find very pleasing, and the lack of it, grating like nails on a chalkboard.

 

> If not, well, overconfidence that vast is certainly stupid, but I'm sure

> everyone in this thread knows that's a standard in-genre convention

> for master villains. It doesn't have to be explained.

 

Yes, but even Doctor Destroyer, the grand high overlord of overconfident megalomaniacs, is still taking his work seriously. When he attacks, there's none of this 'oh, I'm just going to love-tap you with a way underpowered attack because I don't really care if I win or lose!' No, he puts his back into it, and thus, if you survive and triumph in an adventure with him as the antagonist, you really feel like you've achieved something.

 

> Is there any actual proof (from her POV) that she was actually trying

> to CONQUER our dimension with these attacks?

 

Yes... her 3rd attempt at conquest in the GalChamps area, and the subsequent negotiations after that one was beaten (*honestly* beaten, that time, not just 'game called on account of villain throwing it'), laid out her intent quite explicitly.

[Andrew Cermak]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

The cost is unlikely to have been that great... CU mentioned it when large #'s of heroes died, given the attention lavished on enumerating the death toll of Takofanes' first rampage, the Warlord's lifetime kill count, and (of course) the Battle of Detroit. The attempted invasions of Istvatha V'Han, on the other hand, were treated in the timeline as 'same stuff, different aliens', and not with any 'this was a really dark day!' text whatsoever.

 

It is said that she was "barely defeated." That implies a stroke of luck or genius on the heroes' part, and argues against assertions that she came ill-prepared.

 

And since we know nearly nothing about what she came with, how she came with it, or how she was repulsed, the only basis we have for criticizing her is that she lost, and as a comic-style supervillain losing is her raison d'etre. She does, after all, have Overconfidence bought as VC, Total. She's designed to give the heroes a chance to win, even if she doesn't realize she's doing it.

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

> It is said that she was "barely defeated." That implies a stroke of luck

> or genius on the heroes' part, and argues against assertions that she

> came ill-prepared.

 

The game stats published for her forces argue otherwise. If those guys were well-prepared, I'm the Pope.

 

> And since we know nearly nothing about what she came with, [snip]

 

Nope, sorry, they gave stats on the infantry, the tanks, and IIRC the powersuit units she used for the Earth invasion. All of which stats were really less than impressive. Or comparable even to *non*-superhero tech, from the Terran Empire era.

[Andrew Cermak]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

The game stats published for her forces argue otherwise. If those guys were well-prepared, I'm the Pope.

 

Nope, sorry, they gave stats on the infantry, the tanks, and IIRC the powersuit units she used for the Earth invasion. All of which stats were really less than impressive. Or comparable even to *non*-superhero tech, from the Terran Empire era.

 

Reread the descriptions. Nowhere does it say that those comprised the entirety of her invasion force. It implies the opposite, in fact.

 

So, we still don't know what she came with or how she came with it. Just that her grunts are built on as many points as a Heroic character, which puts them well ahead of any Earth military's grunts.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

> "Demonstrably inadequate?" Hmm... in the final analysis I suppose

> that's true, because her first two attempts failed. But then, all of

> Istvatha's attempted conquests of Earth failed.

 

Yes, but the reason the last one failed was an /understandable/ mistake... one that, while it was an error, isn't a damning indictment of the competence of the person who made it. Stuff just happened.

 

The other ones, however...

 

[snip]

> To be fair, we don't actually know what the circumstances of V'han's

> two first failures at Earthly conquest were.

 

The #'s on those troop writeups is a big clue.

 

> All we're told is that she was repulsed, but not how or at what cost.

 

The cost is unlikely to have been that great... CU mentioned it when large #'s of heroes died, given the attention lavished on enumerating the death toll of Takofanes' first rampage, the Warlord's lifetime kill count, and (of course) the Battle of Detroit. The attempted invasions of Istvatha V'Han, on the other hand, were treated in the timeline as 'same stuff, different aliens', and not with any 'this was a really dark day!' text whatsoever.

 

> It seems that she learned from each failure, and came back better

> prepared the next time.

 

That would explain the first one, but not the second one.

 

[snip]

> In the year 3000 she invaded with overwhelming force and

> near-flawless strategy. And she still lost.

 

... because in the interim, humanity had gone from a primitive species on one planet to an advanced starfaring culture spread throughout the galaxy. If she'd used even a /tenth/ of the force level from the 3000 invasion(1) in one of her 20th century attempts, we'd have been hammered flat like nails.

 

Losing the first couple of rounds and coming back prepared is nice. Not losing the first couple of rounds is even nicer.

 

 

 

 

(1) And given that said force level was 'overwhelming' to a galactic culture, and she'd be attacking just one planet, me saying 'a tenth' is probably way overdoing it.

 

All of these are very valid objections, and I won't call you wrong for raising them. Since you use the actual published references to support them, I went back over the text to check the details.

 

V'han's first invasion in 1998 is mentioned on the timeline from Champions Universe; from V'han's writeup in Conquerors, Killers and Crooks, "the superhumans of Earth banded together to fend off her assault." That sounds like a major operation, but the lack of superhuman casualty numbers doesn't necessarily mean that the attempt wasn't serious - very few superheroes have actually died in the major invasions in comicbooks. In fact V'han's troop writeups have them using Energy Blast weapons rather than Killing Attacks, and if she sees herself as a benevolent conqueror it would make sense for her to use less lethal weapons.

 

You emphasise that she didn't learn from the mistakes of her first attack: "That would explain the first one, but not the second one." CKC says that "the Champions thwarted another attack early in 2002." The CU timeline doesn't even mention an invasion attempt in 2002. Now "thwarted" could mean a lot of things: maybe the Champions discovered her D-gate equipment and sabotaged it; maybe they encouraged some of her troops to revolt; maybe they discovered compromising photos of her and threatened to publish them. Since it's the Champions they probably didn't thwart her through might of arms. Any thwarting could have occurred before the attack was even launched, though. Based on the text one can't conclusively assert that she conducted a full scale invasion attempt between her first one in 1998 and the one in 2017.

 

Once you accept that premise, the rest is easy to explain. The first invasion underestimated superhuman resistance, which usually happens in the comics. "The #'s on those troop writeups" are explicitly for Istvatha's basic troops, not the elites. The amount of force employed was proportional to the challenge she anticipated: you don't manage millions of worlds successfully if you use up all your sledgehammers to crack wallnuts.

 

If she only actually invaded in 1998 and again in 2017, she obviously learned a great deal from her initial failure since she came so close to success the second time. Based on the published references I have to conclude that Istvatha V'han looks like a much more competent conqueror than some of her naysayers have painted her.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

Reread the descriptions. Nowhere does it say that those comprised the entirety of her invasion force. It implies the opposite' date=' in fact.[/quote']

 

Just so. The D-Soldier writeup says, "This character sheet represents a typical D-Soldier in the armies of the Empress. Although not as skilled, powerful, or well-equipped as more specialized troops, the D-Soldier is the backbone of Istvatha V'han's armies." In other words, a basic footsoldier, making up the largest portion of her forces but far from the best of them, like most Earthly armies.

 

CKC also says, "For the Empress's superhuman soldiers, just use the other characters in this book, with changed appearances and names - given the number of species she has to draw from, she can have pretty much any type of superhuman the GM wants her to." So, superhumans are explicitly part of the forces she can deploy.

 

Just because all her forces aren't written up doesn't mean the GM can't equip her with whatever he thinks she needs to be a threat to PCs. In fact the text repeatedly advises us to use the premise of her limitless resources to do just that. Given that they are limited, would it really have been that profitable to stat more of them in CKC?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

By and large, I'm going to have to side with Chuckg on this one. Most of the stuff in regards to Istvatha V'han doesn't make a lot of sense, or seems somehwat contradictory at best.

 

I suppose it's possible the first two invasion attempts were feints -- designed to "draw out" the real strength of the enemy so it could be studied in action against a measuring stick you know well (your own basic troops) and, at the same time, convince the enemy that they've seen what you've got so when you do come "in force", they'll be surprised and underprepared, having "dealt with" you and your forces before.

 

Darned expensive feints, if that's what they were, but with that many worlds to draw from for resources, probably not an unsound decision.

 

Do I really buy that? I dunno. Do I think it explains all the "unexplainables" or the apparent contradictions? Not at all.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

Nope' date=' sorry, they gave stats on the infantry, the tanks, and IIRC the powersuit units she used for the Earth invasion. All of which stats were really less than impressive. Or comparable even to *non*-superhero tech, from the Terran Empire era.[/quote']

 

I don't mean to bust your chops over this, Chuckg, but the text simply isn't that definitive. D-Soldiers are basic infantry, not elites - that's what their writeup says. Are basic American infantry better trained and equipped? The Hovertank is "a standard frontline military vehicle employed by Istvatha V'han's armies" - not "the only vehicle." Is every Earthly frontline military vehicle an Abrams tank? There are no powersuit troops written up or even mentioned, but superhumans equal to most of those in CKC are stated to be part of her forces.

[steriaca]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

Is it just me, or do you just want to yell "Enougth With How Little We Know About Istvatha V'han's Agents, And How She Should Already Be Lady And Mistress Of Champions Earth Already If Run Corectly" stuff. Can we hear about other villians which can stand to be improved a bit? Like The Warlord, for example.

[Dominique]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

Warlord and the War Machine just don't click for me. Hell, I might rewrite him and post my version of his background here (along with some new members of the War Machine), that is TPTB don't mind me tinkering with him.

 

As far as the others go, with the exception of Dr. D, I rally don't like any of the Master Villains, (and I plan on making some changes to the good Dr.).

 

I already rewrote Firewing, I'm playing with some ideas for PSI (I've always liked the concept and would like to see an updated version of Mind Games, hint, hint). I'd like to see them tighten up the whole "Project Starburst" backstory.

 

And beleive it or not, I'd like to see them to incorporate some of the characters back stories from Champions New Millenium. (like their version of Lady Blue).

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

I actually like the Warlord, and the War Machine are one of the best 350-point villain teams I know of.

 

I do agree that him having his own Helicarrier that flies around invading countries without getting spotted (and shot at) by any of the global superpowers (UNTIL, the US military, Doctor Destroyer, etc.) is more than a bit far-fetched, though. They should make him more like a supervillain version of the title character from "Lord of War".

[Dominique]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

While I'm thinking about it, if you guys want a kick @$$ villain group, wait till you see the Promethians from Blackwyrm Games "The Algernon Files". I just hope they find a decent printer so they can actually publish the Hero versions of the characters.

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

> I don't mean to bust your chops over this, Chuckg, but the text

> simply isn't that definitive. D-Soldiers are basic infantry, not elites -

> that's what their writeup says. Are basic American infantry better

> trained and equipped?

 

The problem with this line of reasonins is that basic American infantry are from 20th-century Earth. V'Han's basic infantry is from an advanced starfaring civilization with one hundred million separate universes of resources backing them up. For V'Han's line infantry to be not that much better than ours is as ridiculous as if the US Army was only minorly advanced, in equipment and vehicles, beyond Bronze Age spearmen.

 

At *minimum*, V'Han's troops should be looking like Empress Marissa's troops from Terran Empire -- goodness knows that she enjoys at /least/ a comparable tech base, as well as has a genormously higher budget. Anything less is as silly as frontline military from a TL12+ culture using TL8 weapons and equipment in anything outside of a historical re-enactment... because that's exactly what she's doing.

 

> The Hovertank is "a standard frontline military vehicle employed by

> Istvatha V'han's armies" - not "the only vehicle." Is every Earthly

> frontline military vehicle an Abrams tank?

 

Mostly, yes -- there is no other tank in regular US service /but/ the Abrams. (As for the armies of other countries? To use 3e GURPS terms again, the US Army is the only TL8 force on an otherwise TL7 planet... US military tech, today, is in a class by itself.)

 

Not to mention that unlike the planet Earth, V'Han's Empire is precisely that -- one Empire. Presuming even a basic amount of standardization, her line infantry would be her line infantry, her tanks would be her tanks, etc, etc. Even the Traveller universe's Third Imperium, which has a semi-unified feudal Empire whose armies are raised and equipped *individually*, by *sector*, /still/ has a mostly uniform set of military technical specs... Sector Dukes might raise and fund their own forces, but they all use the same procurement list. Regina Sector Army troops might be members of an entirely different demesne than District 268 Army troops, answering to different liege lords and being funded by different paymasters, and acting more like two different nations that happen to be allies than subsections of the same empire... but both armies have their armor jockeys driving _Intrepid_ heavy grav tanks and riding to war in _Astrid_ grav APCs, and shouldering K-series gauss rifles. That can all swap parts and ammo.

 

> There are no powersuit troops written up or even mentioned, but

> superhumans equal to most of those in CKC are stated to be part of

> her forces.

 

Yes, but the odds are vanishingly small that they were actually deployed in her first two invasion attempts -- given that with *less* metahuman forces, and only one WMD, Doctor Destroyer did a much better job against the combined heroes of Earth at the Battle of Detroit than she in two full-scale invasions. Plus, there's the Tyrannon Front to consider.

[Starlord]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

I might overhaul Doctor Destroyer. While I like Dr. D's writeup as is, I actually preferred his Fuzion makeover better. He came off more like a Darkseid-like villain in that version.

[Chuckg]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

I'd revamp the Sylvestris. And by 'revamp', I mean 'totally obliterate, except for Giacamo and Astralle, who just became an Independent Evil Sorcerer Of Notable Power, and the Supervillain's Beautiful Daughter'.

 

Then I'd take the Cult of the Red Banner and kick them up from minor league to major league, thus giving the Dragon's primary servants on Earth a nice exotic flair, instead of simply being "more of the same, evil mages".

[Metaphysician]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

To be fair, I think the Cult of the Red Banner *are* supposed to be major league, they just haven't gotten any writeup space yet.

[Kirby]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

The point is, and has been, that it's possible to explain V'Han's invasion behavior rationally if one cares too.

 

On the other hand, if someone actually prefers there to be no explanation, because that way they get to be smarmy, superior, and "right," then for them I suppose no explanation could possibly suffice.

Too true. It's difficult to have an intelligent debate with someone who complains that the science fiction can't be believed because reality gets in the way, while saying that we shouldn't use reality to compare science fiction. Coupling this with extremes of one is either an always-victorious genius or a blithering idiot stupider than mulch, with no in-between is just extreme thinking. Then there's that "last word means I'm right" syndrome.

[Kirby]

Re: Which villain needs an overhaul?

 

Is it just me' date=' or do you just want to yell "[Enough'] With How Little We Know About Istvatha V'han's Agents, And How She Should Already Be Lady And Mistress Of Champions Earth Already If Run [Correctly]" stuff[?] Can we hear about other [villains] which can stand to be improved a bit? Like The Warlord, for example.

Well stated.

 

I generally like Powerhouse from 4E's BBB. Let's see, others from CKC: Crowns of Krim (and other evil supernatural types) I'd like to actually see a hero or hero team who has Holy attacks. Otherwise, these guys have lots of free Disadvantages. Though, I'd personally like to see them eliminated so the Seven Horseman could return (since I've been told the latter aren't in 5E because we don't need two teams of the same type. ). Of course, Eurostar needs to be upgraded, I'd like to see GRAB expanded with a few more of the "thief only" villains. Black Harlequin could get a "he's dead" overhaul. I think Blowtorch should be a Dark Champions villain. Bulldozer should have wrestling martial arts. Perhaps write-ups for the other "Anmal Villains" under Fenris's write-up. Grond needs to be more powerful, starting with the elimination of the Vulnerability: Fire that everyone knows about. Herculan always seemed that he was supposed to be a big threat, but at 350, he's clearly not. Maybe I've just misread him. I like Howler, construction-wise, for everything except her amulet, which I think is a munchkin-manufactured Disad. If you take it off of her to remove her powers (it is bought as a focus) and leave it off for too long, she dies, which is not heroic, so you have to keep it on her, which means it's not limiting to her. The others either are okay, or I don't use them (such as the Ultimates) and know about them enough to see if they need upgrading/changing. YMMV.