Dispelling Advanced Technology

[Kristopher]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

The funny thing is, I don't have a problem with using Dispell to build something that knocks an incoming missile out of the sky somehow, if the SFX fits. IMO, that's much more of what Dispell should be used for.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Hmm. Well, all of this does depend heavily on how the weapon was designed. If Summon/Follower or whatever is used as some prefer, then Negative Skill Levels, Sense-Affecting Powers, and/or Mental Powers vs. Machine Minds would likely serve to simulate ECM better even than Powers such as Dispel and Missile Deflection.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Again' date=' I disagree. I think that Deflection IS a required element of the Missile Deflection power. [/quote']

 

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't limit myself my assigning SFX to certain powers based on their names, and then requiring all aspects of that Power to have them. I've found that it makes the system no longer capable of creating anything.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Dispel 16d6' date=' any Technological power one at a time (+1/4) (60 Active Points)[/i']

 

That pretty much allows someone to completely nerf a set of power armor of everything but its attack in 1 turn of attacks, and can nerf a 60 AP attack power on a slightly lucky roll.

 

Sorry, I just don't like it.

 

What's not to like? One guy spends 40 points on a Power with Focus, the other guy spends 60 points free and clear. Seems to me like the guy who spent 60 points should win. And like I said before, Focus means the Power is breakable, if you don't want this to happen to your power armor guy, don't have him take the Focus Limitation.

 

And there's also what WhammeWhamme said. You could instead spend those 60 points on any attack power that does BODY and have the same chance of breaking a 60 AP Focus. The primary difference is you take a -2 to hit.

[Kristopher]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

What's not to like? One guy spends 40 points on a Power with Focus, the other guy spends 60 points free and clear. Seems to me like the guy who spent 60 points should win. And like I said before, Focus means the Power is breakable, if you don't want this to happen to your power armor guy, don't have him take the Focus Limitation.

 

And there's also what WhammeWhamme said. You could instead spend those 60 points on any attack power that does BODY and have the same chance of breaking a 60 AP Focus. The primary difference is you take a -2 to hit.

 

I don't like the fact that one hit completely disables the power until it can be "repaired".

[prestidigitator]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

I don't like the fact that one hit completely disables the power until it can be "repaired".

You are certainly free to redefine what it takes to, "repair," the Focus. Perhaps a suitable Skill could be used in the field. One more reason for even superheros to take Skills. Yeah!

[Mike W]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

For power armor that uses an END Reserve, that's very true (as opposed to every bought 0 END or something more essoteric).

 

Just because we don't use a power very often doesn't mean that there aren't people out there abusing it.

 

You can abuse just about any power in Hero if you try.

[Mike W]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't limit myself my assigning SFX to certain powers based on their names' date=' and then requiring all aspects of that Power to have them. I've found that it makes the system no longer capable of creating anything.[/quote']

 

I'm doing no such thing. I'm reading the power description and saying "This power can't negate things only change their targets."

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

I don't like the fact that one hit completely disables the power until it can be "repaired".

 

But what's the difference between using Dispel and an ordinary attack power then? Do you allow characters to target Foci using regular attack powers?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

I'm doing no such thing. I'm reading the power description and saying "This power can't negate things only change their targets."

 

That's not what the description of Missile Deflection says though.

[Threnody]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Because of the way a nuke is built' date=' I would say "yes". In essence, you probably end up building the nuke with a naked Trigger advantage. And you can certainly Dispel a naked advantage. Although a better way to do it would be to put the "Misfire" modifier onto the Trigger advantage.[/quote']

Yah, you nakedize an Adv., it's a power-itself. I wouldn't do that w/Trigger, but to each her own.

[Mike W]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

That's not what the description of Missile Deflection says though.

Yes, it is. The power description says that you can use Missile Deflect to "block or avoid" incoming attacks. While the description also says that the character "takes no damage" from the attack, it also specifically states that "A character with Missile Deflection normally Deflects incoming attacks in a radnom direction(typically causing no damage to any character or object in the area)." Note that it says the attack is "deflected in a random direction". In other words, it changes the direction of the attack so that it doesn't hit anything significant in the immediate area(thought the fact it says typically means that such a thing COULD still happen). Nowhere does it say that the attack is inactive. And the example under Reflection clearly indicates the attack is still active because the ninja deflects the attack, hits the guard, and then continues on.

[Mike W]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Yah' date=' you nakedize an Adv., it's a power-itself. I wouldn't do that w/Trigger, but to each her own.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't normally have a naked Trigger either, but because of the nature of the weapon, I think it makes sense in this case.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Yes' date=' it is. The power description says that you can use Missile Deflect to "block or avoid" incoming attacks. While the description also says that the character "takes no damage" from the attack, it also specifically states that "A character with Missile Deflection normally Deflects incoming attacks in a radnom direction(typically causing no damage to any character or object in the area)." Note that it says the attack is "deflected in a random direction". In other words, it changes the direction of the attack so that it doesn't hit anything significant in the immediate area(thought the fact it says typically means that such a thing COULD still happen). Nowhere does it say that the attack is inactive. And the example under Reflection clearly indicates the attack is still active because the ninja deflects the attack, hits the guard, and then continues on.[/quote']

 

"Block and avoid" can mean many things.

 

The phrase "normaly Deflects incoming attacks in a random direction" (emphisis mine) means just that, "normally". When it's not "normal" it can be anything but the typical description, including but not limited to simply having the attack cease to exist.

[Mike W]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

"Block and avoid" can mean many things.

 

The phrase "normaly Deflects incoming attacks in a random direction" (emphisis mine) means just that, "normally". When it's not "normal" it can be anything but the typical description, including but not limited to simply having the attack cease to exist.

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You're obviously taking a great deal of liberty with the definition of the power that I don't think is intended and would never allow in my game. The grammar of the sentence doesn't support your reading, but I don't want to turn this into a grammatical discussion. The fact that you will say "block" can mean many things pretty much makes any attempt to disagree with you impossible - whether you're right or not - because you can always say that "block" means something that fits your reading.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You're obviously taking a great deal of liberty with the definition of the power that I don't think is intended and would never allow in my game. The grammar of the sentence doesn't support your reading' date=' but I don't want to turn this into a grammatical discussion. The fact that you will say "block" can mean many things pretty much makes any attempt to disagree with you impossible - whether you're right or not - because you can always say that "block" means something that fits your reading.[/quote']

 

Yeah, pretty much what I was saying earlier. I guess my point is that I don't hold any litteral definition for any given term used in the mechanics. If a mechanic does what I need it to, mechanically, then anything I define it as looking like is valid. It's one of the things that allows the system as a whole to have several methods of accomplishing any given SFX.

 

But yes, I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree on this point. As long as what you do works for you, then all is good in the universe.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You're obviously taking a great deal of liberty with the definition of the power that I don't think is intended and would never allow in my game. The grammar of the sentence doesn't support your reading' date=' but I don't want to turn this into a grammatical discussion. The fact that you will say "block" can mean many things pretty much makes any attempt to disagree with you impossible - whether you're right or not - because you can always say that "block" means something that fits your reading.[/quote']

Uh, just to point out, in reference to the bolded statement above there...

It's not taking any liberties with how the power is intended... It's used it this EXACT way in several places elsewhere in the system. Point defences like the Phalanx system are the first examples that pop into my head of the "attack destroyed" SFX.

 

Feel free to disagree with the interpretation, and not use it if you so like, but the fact is Steve uses missile deflection in this fashion if the situation warrants it says, at least to me, that it's "intended" to render an incoming attack harmless. What actually happens to the attack is all SFX... the statement from the book supports that the intent is for the deflected attack to effect the environment only occasionally when it makes dramatic and SFX related sense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

1 pip major transform: technology to technology that doesn't work.

 

Foci have DEF but not BODY, so the 1 pip should be plenty: 5 points nerfs any focus built technology at all. Well, unless it has power defence. Sweet.

[Kristopher]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

1 pip major transform: technology to technology that doesn't work.

 

Foci have DEF but not BODY, so the 1 pip should be plenty: 5 points nerfs any focus built technology at all. Well, unless it has power defence. Sweet.

 

 

"When all else fails, Transform."

 

Personally, I'm more scared of Transform than I am of Frameworks, Killing Attacks, or...the cost of STR.

[Mike W]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Uh, just to point out, in reference to the bolded statement above there...

It's not taking any liberties with how the power is intended... It's used it this EXACT way in several places elsewhere in the system. Point defences like the Phalanx system are the first examples that pop into my head of the "attack destroyed" SFX.

 

Feel free to disagree with the interpretation, and not use it if you so like, but the fact is Steve uses missile deflection in this fashion if the situation warrants it says, at least to me, that it's "intended" to render an incoming attack harmless. What actually happens to the attack is all SFX... the statement from the book supports that the intent is for the deflected attack to effect the environment only occasionally when it makes dramatic and SFX related sense.

 

Well, I'd be curious where that comes from. I haven't had the money for many of the 5th edition books, but I can find nothing in 4th Ed. Champs, including virtually all of the supplements(but not individual adventures) or in the Fred that could support such a reading. If HERO has published such a thing...well it wouldn't be the first time they contratdicted themselves. It tends to happen with such large group projects like this. There's just too much to keep track of.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Well' date=' I'd be curious where that comes from. I haven't had the money for many of the 5th edition books, but I can find nothing in 4th Ed. Champs, including virtually all of the supplements(but not individual adventures) or in the Fred that could support such a reading. If HERO has published such a thing...well it wouldn't be the first time they contratdicted themselves. It tends to happen with such large group projects like this. There's just too much to keep track of.[/quote']

I hear you.. my 5th edition collection has been VERY gradually expanding, at the rate of a couple of books a year.

Point Defenses bought as Missile Deflection appear in both TUV and Star Hero. I'm pretty sure TUB has a missile deflection power defined along the lines of the Chin block... You flex up and take it like a man, but the SFX on that could be argued... Do the bullets actually ricochet, or do they fall harmelssly to the floor?

Another classic example... Yadomejitsu (sp?) , aka Arrow Cutting.

In general (and to reconnect to the topic of the thread) Missile Deflection works as an active defence precisely because its effectiveness isn't tied to the AP cost of the attacking power. If you were to use, say, Dispel as the core power for a weapon in point defence mode, you'd be faced with exactly the dilemma the OP presented. The same cruise missle would require different effect rolls to Dispel based on the munition loaded... a nuke would be MUCH harder to kill than a conventional explosive, which would be much harder to kill than one filled with propaganda leaflets. Moreover, Dispel is an Attack Power, with Range. What happens if an attack is lauched from beyond the range of the dispel? Is it impossible to stop because its takking longer to get to the target? Counterintuitave, to say the least.

 

I do think that this is a fair place to consider a potential binary campaign level house rule tho (like Knockback vs knockdown).

Realistic Missile Deflection could have, as the default, the assumption that a deflected projectile goes SOMEWHERE (use scatter rules for direction, 0 ocv to determine if it hits anything), and charge say, a +1/4 advantage for deflection that destroys the attack.

Cinematic Missile Deflection (the default by the rules currently) assumes that deflected projectiles are generally prevented from causing any further game effects (excpet at rare gm's discretion), with an optional -1/4 Limit "real deflection" to reflect the "what goes up must come down" factor

[prestidigitator]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

1 pip major transform: technology to technology that doesn't work.

 

Foci have DEF but not BODY, so the 1 pip should be plenty: 5 points nerfs any focus built technology at all. Well, unless it has power defence. Sweet.

Nothing says they don't have Body. It just so happens that in order to, "break," a Focus you only have to get past a defined DEF value with a damaging attack, but that doesn't mean the object itself does not have Body. It's going to be up to the GM to determine how much Body that is, but I'd either look on the Object table or come up with a guideline based on the Focus's DEF/Active Points myself.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

The exact wording I find most applicable to the discussion of Missile Deflection is "A successful Missile Deflection roll means the character takes no damage. A Deflected attack typically does not cause damage to other characters or the locale." (5ER, page 208). This pretty much spells out that a Deflected attack simply dissappears, vanishes, ceases to exist and otherwise goes nowhere. The SFX of Missile Deflection may make it appear as if the attack bounces off and goes somewhere else, but if it's not damaging anything, that's all it is: what it looks like. I'll also point out that in every instance of the term, "Deflect" is capitalized, meaning it's referring to the game mechanic of Missile Deflecting, not the English definition of the word "deflect".

[Kristopher]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

The exact wording I find most applicable to the discussion of Missile Deflection is "A successful Missile Deflection roll means the character takes no damage. A Deflected attack typically does not cause damage to other characters or the locale." (5ER' date=' page 208). This pretty much spells out that a Deflected attack simply dissappears, vanishes, ceases to exist and otherwise goes nowhere. The SFX of Missile Deflection may make it appear as if the attack bounces off and goes somewhere else, but if it's not damaging anything, that's all it is: what it [i']looks like[/i]. I'll also point out that in every instance of the term, "Deflect" is capitalized, meaning it's referring to the game mechanic of Missile Deflecting, not the English definition of the word "deflect".

 

Whereas I find that highly counter-intuitive, and would make sure the character with Deflection was aware of the damage to his surroundings and the risk of a bystander being hit.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Dispelling Advanced Technology

 

Whereas I find that highly counter-intuitive' date=' and would make sure the character with Deflection was aware of the damage to his surroundings and the risk of a bystander being hit.[/quote']

 

Why? What if the character with Missile Deflection has the SFX "opens a rift in time and space that sucks the attack into another dimension" or "is an amorphous blob that traps projectiles in his jellied flesh"?