Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

IMO' date=' the SFX and the mechanic should match. Getting out of the way is Dodge, not Block.[/quote']

 

In Hero System, there is no "matching" as you imply between SFX and the game mechanics. Everything matches with everything.

 

With the rules for Block and Dodge specifically, all a Block does is negate all effects of a single attack and allow the defender to act first should both he and the defender act in the same segment each of their next Phases. There is nothing about physically intercepting the attack. And with Dodge, it just increases the character's DCV for their Phase. Nothing about physically moving around to avoid attacks.

 

What you should be thinking is of matching an applicable game mechanic to the SFX you envision instead of the other way around.

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

In Hero System, there is no "matching" as you imply between SFX and the game mechanics. Everything matches with everything.

 

With the rules for Block and Dodge specifically, all a Block does is negate all effects of a single attack and allow the defender to act first should both he and the defender act in the same segment each of their next Phases. There is nothing about physically intercepting the attack. And with Dodge, it just increases the character's DCV for their Phase. Nothing about physically moving around to avoid attacks.

 

What you should be thinking is of matching an applicable game mechanic to the SFX you envision instead of the other way around.

 

Everything but the last paragraph is, IMO, wrong.

 

I utterly reject and oppose the "any mechanic can be used to represent any SFX" school of thought in HERO construction.

 

That's how we end up with cutesy or kludgey mechicanical builds that don't have the same feel as the SFX they're supposed to represent, and often are used more for their mechanical/metagame effectiveness than they are for their appropriateness to the effect being represented.

 

That's how we end up with Desolidification being used to build invulnerability.

 

Block does one thing, and Dodge another, and the very names suggest exactly what they're supposed to represent. Using Block to represent the ability to get out of the way or Dodge to represent deflecting or absorbing the hit is bass ackwards, kludgey, etc.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I utterly reject and oppose the "any mechanic can be used to represent any SFX" school of thought in HERO construction.

 

That's how we end up with cutesy or kludgey mechicanical builds that don't have the same feel as the SFX they're supposed to represent, and often are used more for their mechanical/metagame effectiveness than they are for their appropriateness to the effect being represented.

 

That's how we end up with Desolidification being used to build invulnerability.

 

Block does one thing, and Dodge another, and the very names suggest exactly what they're supposed to represent. Using Block to represent the ability to get out of the way or Dodge to represent deflecting or absorbing the hit is bass ackwards, kludgey, etc.

 

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kristopher again.

 

Dude, we were SO separated at birth.

[Boulder]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

The nice thing about HERO system is that any power can have any special effect, the same for martial maneuvers.

 

A move threw attack in considered a hand attack, the same as move-bye.

Relize that a move threw is very easy to block since the distance givess a - to OCV.

 

Example is that a barbarian does a move threw with his battle ax, the defender a paladine states he blocks with his shield, should anyone of us as a GM say "You can't block that!"

 

In a super game a Brick rushes the martial artist, are we going to state that he can't? A block is a good defence for hand attacks, but it has its negatives also, you block you can't attack, if you abort than being able to attack first is kind of mute.

 

Now if the Colossus, a villian with growth...lets say 8 levels and decides to stomp Black hawk a martial artis, if he said, "I block" well let him block and still get flaten as the entire area is damaged bye the stomp.

 

Blaock and Dodge have only one thing in common, they are both purely defensive maneuvers. They do two totally different things, Dodge adds to the DCV and block is a "to hit" roll to negate the hit.

 

If you really want a good argument see the thread "When should you let a player Missile deflect"

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I usually don't get into these type of discussions but the claim, "Any Mechanic May Have Any SFX" is easily disproved.

 

If this claim were true, then there would only be three mechanics (Attack, Defense, & Perception), since these three mechanics could have any SFX.

 

You can take any mechanic and give an example of a SFX that wouldn't make any sense, thus disproving the part of "Any SFX".

 

Thus you can give examples like:

I use my normal, non-armored, and non-protected to block all melee attacks regardless of the weapon. You can try to rationalize it all you want, but there will always be an attack type (SFX) that won't make any sense for the character to be able to block and take no damage, per the definition of the mechanic. Such as a whip attack, no matter what the character does with his arm he should take damage if he blocks the attack. The only SFX that would make sense would be grabbing the whip, but that would be a different mechanic than the block mechanic.

 

Similarly, you could apply Damage Shield to PD and try to rationalize that it has the effect of damaging those who strike your skin, but it won't work, since the PD mechanic associated with "Defense SFX" not "Any SFX".

 

Now every mechanic does have certain range of SFX that it was intended to help simulate any SFX within that range.

 

Addendum: As far as Martial Arts, if they can represent Any SFX, then why aren't the included as normal maneuvers? Why are they separated and named after the Martial Arts sFX if they are nothing more than extended mechanics of the standard maneuvers available to everyone?

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Block does one thing, and Dodge another, and the very names suggest exactly what they're supposed to represent. Using Block to represent the ability to get out of the way or Dodge to represent deflecting or absorbing the hit is bass ackwards, kludgey, etc.

 

Yet I'm absolutely certain you have no problem with buying an Energy Blast that's versus PD.

 

I utterly reject and oppose double standards.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

I usually don't get into these type of discussions but the claim, "Any Mechanic May Have Any SFX" is easily disproved.

 

If this claim were true, then there would only be three mechanics (Attack, Defense, & Perception), since these three mechanics could have any SFX.

 

You can take any mechanic and give an example of a SFX that wouldn't make any sense, thus disproving the part of "Any SFX".

That's a bit simple of you ask me. I don't have to tell you why the Hero System has so many various mechanics. It has nothing to do with trying to cover all SFX possible. It has to do with covering all the game effects possible.

 

Thus you can give examples like:

I use my normal, non-armored, and non-protected to block all melee attacks regardless of the weapon. You can try to rationalize it all you want, but there will always be an attack type (SFX) that won't make any sense for the character to be able to block and take no damage, per the definition of the mechanic. Such as a whip attack, no matter what the character does with his arm he should take damage if he blocks the attack. The only SFX that would make sense would be grabbing the whip, but that would be a different mechanic than the block mechanic.

You are mixing SFX and mechanics. For every SFX of defense, there will always be a SFX that would logically ignore it or it would otherwise wouldn't apply to. However, there is no such parallel in the game mechanics. Block affects all HTH attacks, regardless of the SFX of the attack or the Block. The rules only offer a guideline on what to do if the SFX don't logically match (such as blocking a sword by catching it in your bare hands), but even then, the Block is a valid defense maneuver, not barred because "it doesn't make sense".

 

Similarly, you could apply Damage Shield to PD and try to rationalize that it has the effect of damaging those who strike your skin, but it won't work, since the PD mechanic associated with "Defense SFX" not "Any SFX".

No you can't. Damage Shield can only be applied to Attack Powers. This is a game mechanic. That's why it won't work. As it happens though, you are perfectly justifed in buying Armor with the SFX of "a sword I swing around". The blade deflects damage away, protecting the character. You can also buy an HKA with the SFX of "hard armor I wear and use to smash people to death." If this doesn't make sense to you, you are only limiting yourself.

 

Now every mechanic does have certain range of SFX that it was intended to help simulate any SFX within that range.

 

Addendum: As far as Martial Arts, if they can represent Any SFX, then why aren't the included as normal maneuvers? Why are they separated and named after the Martial Arts sFX if they are nothing more than extended mechanics of the standard maneuvers available to everyone?

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

For the same reason Energy Blast is called Energy Blast even though it can be used to represent thrown rocks, rubber bullets, the wind, etc.

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

That's a bit simple of you ask me. I don't have to tell you why the Hero System has so many various mechanics. It has nothing to do with trying to cover all SFX possible. It has to do with covering all the game effects possible.

Really, so you know for a fact that the game was designed by defining mechanics first without regard to SFX, instead of thinking of the various things in Movies and Comics (SFX) and then trying to come up with a game mechanic to try to simulate that source material.

 

That logic doesn't really follow, even for other game systems that I'm familiar with.

 

So yes, it does have to do with creating game effects... in order to simulate the source material in question (SFX). So unless you have something to suggest that the game mechanics were not designed in this fashion, you have little chance of convincing otherwise.

 

You are mixing SFX and mechanics. For every SFX of defense' date=' there will always be a SFX that would logically ignore it or it would otherwise wouldn't apply to. However, there is no such parallel in the game mechanics.[/quote']

No, the game is mixing SFX and mechanics. (8^D)

 

Thank you!! Yes, you've exposed one of the things in the game design that shows that SFX was key in defining a mechanic. Defenses PD, ED, and MD have an SFX associated with them. This can not be denied. Physical Defense (PD) is limited to reducing Physical Attacks. Flash Defense is loosely tied to the Five Senses SFX. Power Defense truely has no SFX tied to it and this actually creates problems with it being purchased and making sense SFXwise.

 

So, when you purchase an attack you must compare the SFX of the attack to the predefined SFX of the defenses and then make that attack vs that defense, even if it requires using and advantage to do so.

 

I couldn't have explained how SFX is tied into certain mechanics without your help. Thanks. You clarified my thoughts on this.

 

Block affects all HTH attacks' date=' regardless of the SFX of the attack or the Block. The rules only offer a guideline on what to do if the SFX don't logically match (such as blocking a sword by catching it in your bare hands), but even then, the Block is a valid defense maneuver, not barred because "it doesn't make sense".[/quote']

So, you seem to be saying that if the SFX would suggest a different mechanic than Block, that you would still allow that SFX be assigned to a Block, since Block can be assigned to any SFX?

 

Also, Steve Long has already stated that if the mechanic and SFX don't make sense, that common/dramatic sense prevails. Thus, if the SFX doesn't make sense for the mechanic, you don't define it using that mechanic.

 

And based on what you said above, Block (the mechanic) affects all Hand To Hand Attacks (the mechanic), and not the SFX of HTH. This leads to non-sensical applications and therefore suggests that one should try to match the SFX to the mechanic (that it was intended to simulate) or have to deal with non-sensical application of SFX that won't make sense in play. It'ss your game, and as long as your fine with it, great, but if you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to come up with something a bit more solid.

 

No you can't. Damage Shield can only be applied to Attack Powers. This is a game mechanic.

And as GM, I can do whatever I want in my games, right?

I can allow SFX to be assigned to anything, and apply mechanics in ways against the rules, right?

 

Doesn't make a lot of sense to apply things in ways that they obviously weren't meant to used. There are plenty of rules that can be broken in ways that will work and actually make sense, but then there are others, such as the one I gave above (8^D), that don't make sense regardless since it was never designed to be used that way. Same thing applies to mechanics and SFX.

 

As it happens though' date=' you are perfectly justifed in buying Armor with the SFX of "a sword I swing around". The blade deflects damage away, protecting the character.[/quote']

That SFX won't work since due to the fact that when the character is knocked out it won't protect the character, and unless the Armor is purchased as a Focus, it can't be picked up by other characters. Also, since armor doesn't help a character escape from an entangle "Net" and a sword being wielded does, it fails miserably as a SFX assigned solely to the Armor mechanic.

 

Now if you want to go into how simulate certain Foci SFX, I could show you a VPP (Rope SFX) that would boggle your mind. But I wouldn't try to assign the Rope SFX to the Block mechanic. (8^D)

 

...you can also buy an HKA with the SFX of "hard armor I wear and use to smash people to death." If this doesn't make sense to you' date=' you are only limiting yourself.[/quote']

Actually, this one of course makes sense, since Spiked Gloves are type of "SFX Armor" and are specifically meant to increase damage of ones punches. So you did well in matching the SFX with the actual mechanic here.

 

Haven't limited myself in the least. But obviously the other SFX above suggest completely different mechanics for thier build to simulate what they actually do.

 

For the same reason Energy Blast is called Energy Blast even though it can be used to represent thrown rocks' date=' rubber bullets, the wind, etc.[/quote']

Actually, no. Energy Blast is called Energy Blast, because it was named that when Champions was the main thrust of the system and Attack Blast was probably too boring.

 

Oh, here is another one, both Force Field and Force Wall allow you to build in all the defenses in the book, but Armor is limited to Physical/Energy Defense only. Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... SFX. (8^D)

 

Why isn't MD, FD, or PwrD default or figured stats?

Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... Human SFX overlay of the stats.

 

I welcome any evidence you can provide that might suggest otherwise.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Yet I'm absolutely certain you have no problem with buying an Energy Blast that's versus PD.

 

Different case entirely, simply a matter of a legacy name. That's not the same thing, at all, as claiming that there's not SFX distinction between the Block and Dodge maneuvers.

 

Even though it's called "Energy Blast", EB is simply meant to represent an attack that's intended to stun.

 

RKA and HKA are meant to represent attacks that are intended to be lethal.

 

Despite people getting hung up on the names, that's the division, and another case where two different kinds of mechanic are in the game to respresent two different broad groupings of SFX.

[Kristopher]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

However, consider this, both Killing Attacks in 4th Edition were defiined vs Physical Defense only. No switching to Energy Defense like the rules allow now.

 

Oh, here is another one, both Force Field and Force Wall allow you to build in all the defenses in the book, but Armor is limited to Physical Defense only.

 

Um...while I agree with the general thrust of your post...Killing Attacks could be defined as vs PD or vs ED, and Armor had both PD and ED, in 4th edition. Really. I just looked it up to be certain. I can even give you the page numbers.

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Um...while I agree with the general thrust of your post...Killing Attacks could be defined as vs PD or vs ED' date=' and Armor had both PD and ED, in 4th edition. Really. I just looked it up to be certain. I can even give you the page numbers.[/quote']

Ooops, typo on the Armor thing. Yes, it's limited to only Physical and Energy, and not the others.

 

As for HA, and HKA, could give me the page number for those, I would really appreciate it. I would like to double check myself on that.

 

I retract my statement on this until further notice. Thanks. (8^D)

 

Addendum: Corrected post to remove inaccuracies pointed out by Kristopher.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

As for HA' date=' and HKA, could give me the page number for those, I would really appreciate it. I would like to double check myself on that.[/quote']

KILLING ATTACK -- HAND-TO-HAND (HKA)

...

A character must define his attack as physical or energy damage (whether it works against PD or ED; STR adds to the damage in either case).

KILLING ATTACK -- RANGED (RKA)

...

A character must define his attack as physical or energy damage (whether it works against PD or ED).

HA, on the other hand, does seem to imply it is only physical:

HAND-TO-HAND ATTACK (HA)

...

For 3 Character Points, the character can buy +1d6 of physical Hand-to-Hand Attack (HA). This adds directly to the damage done by the character's hand-to-hand attacks.

However I think there may have been answers by Steve Long clarifying that it could in fact be bought as energy damage (I'm not sure if 4E FAQs/questions can still be found, and I'm not trying right now).

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

HA, on the other hand, does seem to imply it is only physical:

 

However I think there may have been answers by Steve Long clarifying that it could in fact be bought as energy damage (I'm not sure if 4E FAQs/questions can still be found, and I'm not trying right now).

Yeah, that must have been what I was thinking of. I found it odd that many weapons used HA as the mechanic, but the rules seemed to say Physcial Damage only.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't have to find my old 4th Edition book now. (8^D)

 

I knew there was an attack that Physical Attack only. So I'm not hallucinating. (8^D)

 

Or am I?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Really' date=' so you know for a fact that the game was designed by defining mechanics first without regard to SFX, instead of thinking of the various things in Movies and Comics (SFX) and then trying to come up with a game mechanic to try to simulate that source material.[/quote']

Do you know for a fact it's otherwise?

 

No, the game is mixing SFX and mechanics. (8^D)

You are messing thing up here. I'm just talking about the rules used to play the game. The game is something different.

 

Thank you!! Yes, you've exposed one of the things in the game design that shows that SFX was key in defining a mechanic. Defenses PD, ED, and MD have an SFX associated with them. This can not be denied. Physical Defense (PD) is limited to reducing Physical Attacks. Flash Defense is loosely tied to the Five Senses SFX. Power Defense truely has no SFX tied to it and this actually creates problems with it being purchased and making sense SFXwise.

 

So, when you purchase an attack you must compare the SFX of the attack to the predefined SFX of the defenses and then make that attack vs that defense, even if it requires using and advantage to do so.

 

I couldn't have explained how SFX is tied into certain mechanics without your help. Thanks. You clarified my thoughts on this.

You have given a wonderful example on how this discussion could be taking to an absurdity. It's like you haven't even read my post. Or at the very least, you've completely failed to understand what I was saying.

 

 

So, you seem to be saying that if the SFX would suggest a different mechanic than Block, that you would still allow that SFX be assigned to a Block, since Block can be assigned to any SFX?

 

Also, Steve Long has already stated that if the mechanic and SFX don't make sense, that common/dramatic sense prevails. Thus, if the SFX doesn't make sense for the mechanic, you don't define it using that mechanic.

 

And based on what you said above, Block (the mechanic) affects all Hand To Hand Attacks (the mechanic), and not the SFX of HTH. This leads to non-sensical applications and therefore suggests that one should try to match the SFX to the mechanic (that it was intended to simulate) or have to deal with non-sensical application of SFX that won't make sense in play. It'ss your game, and as long as your fine with it, great, but if you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to come up with something a bit more solid.

I show you anything anything more solid if you keep refusing to see it.

 

 

 

 

And as GM, I can do whatever I want in my games, right?

I can allow SFX to be assigned to anything, and apply mechanics in ways against the rules, right?

 

Doesn't make a lot of sense to apply things in ways that they obviously weren't meant to used. There are plenty of rules that can be broken in ways that will work and actually make sense, but then there are others, such as the one I gave above (8^D), that don't make sense regardless since it was never designed to be used that way. Same thing applies to mechanics and SFX.

If it doesn't make sense to you, then do as you will. All I'm trying to do help you understand.

 

Actually, no. Energy Blast is called Energy Blast, because it was named that when Champions was the main thrust of the system and Attack Blast was probably too boring.

 

Oh, here is another one, both Force Field and Force Wall allow you to build in all the defenses in the book, but Armor is limited to Physical/Energy Defense only. Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... SFX. (8^D)

 

Why isn't MD, FD, or PwrD default or figured stats?

Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... Human SFX overlay of the stats.

 

I welcome any evidence you can provide that might suggest otherwise.

 

- Christopher Mullins

I don't believe you welcome anything. You seem set in your point of view and refust to budge. You even go so far, once again, to make believe I've said something I haven't. I'd thank you for trying, but from what I can tell you aren't.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Different case entirely, simply a matter of a legacy name. That's not the same thing, at all, as claiming that there's not SFX distinction between the Block and Dodge maneuvers.

 

Even though it's called "Energy Blast", EB is simply meant to represent an attack that's intended to stun.

 

RKA and HKA are meant to represent attacks that are intended to be lethal.

 

Despite people getting hung up on the names, that's the division, and another case where two different kinds of mechanic are in the game to respresent two different broad groupings of SFX.

 

It's still a double standard on your part. You can easily look past the name of Energy Blast, but can't see past the names of Block and Dodge.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Hey guys. Let's calm down a little, okay? I think we're all quite capable of being reasonable and making rational arguments rather than throwing slush, eh?

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Do you know for a fact it's otherwise?

Actually, I do. Not for Hero Games specifically, but for another game system. The designer doesn't create a mechanic out of thin air and then find a use for it in the source material. They look at the source material and then come up with a mechanic to help simulate it. So once again. The burden one you to convince me otherwise.

 

You are messing thing up here. I'm just talking about the rules used to play the game. The game is something different.

Meaningless to anything I'm talking about. I'll ignore it as failed attempt to insult me. (8^D)

 

Unless you meant something else and can explain it. I am quite thick headed at times.

 

You have given a wonderful example on how this discussion could be taking to an absurdity. It's like you haven't even read my post. Or at the very least' date=' you've completely failed to understand what I was saying.[/quote']

This is quite possible. I am thick headed and sometimes it takes a lot to get through. I'm quite willing to trudge through multiple posts to try to understand.

 

Now I will step back for moment to clarify some things:

1) I started out by giving my opinion on the system and how certain mechanics do have a range of SFX associated with them and why I think that.

2) You respond by telling me how I'm all wrong about this (at least that is how it came across).

3) So I immediately respond by wanting to know why I'm wrong and continue to put forth more reasons why I think what I do.

4) So I'm waiting for you to show some disconnect with my logic with how I came to my conclusion. So far you have failed to do that, but perhaps you haven't been trying to do that at all.

 

Now if all you are doing is giving your own opinion on how the system works and why you think that, then hey, that's fine. But don't do it by trying to tell me why I am wrong, unless you are willing to show where I'm missing something or can show where my logic is faulty. I've been proven wrong before and will be proven wrong again in the future. I have also changed my mind multiple times about things with the system by having discussions with people on the board here.

 

I'll try to be less frustrating to you in my posts, but don't mistake my thick headedness for anything other than that, thick headedness.

 

Moving on.

 

I show you anything anything more solid if you keep refusing to see it.

Probably a typo or something here.

 

If you are referring to your examples, all I did was take your SFX and apply them to the mechanics that they would normally be applied to. That is the way the system was designed to used per the "Reason From SFX". Or am I missing something again?

 

If it doesn't make sense to you' date=' then do as you will. All I'm trying to do help you understand.[/quote']

Then it would seem that you are just giving your opinion on how you view things and why you think that. Then why attack my reasons for what I think in the process of doing this?

 

I don't believe you welcome anything. You seem set in your point of view and refust to budge. You even go so far' date=' once again, to make believe I've said something I haven't. I'd thank you for trying, but from what I can tell you aren't.[/quote']

(8^D) Dust Raven, we seem to be flip sides of the same coin. I could easily reflect this statement back you and it would seem to apply. I won't take this as an insult either. Since it is probably the result of my thick headedness again. (8^D)

 

Now, if you want to dicuss my reasons/rationale/logic and how it is flawed in some way. I do welcome it. Since if I am missing something, I truely do want to know about it.

 

However, if you want to discuss what your reasons/rationale/logic are, then don't quote my stuff in doing so. Just state your opinion and the reasons why you think that. I'm good with that. Maybe I've become too comfortable discussing things with you since I can't seem to keep from angering you. That is not my intent.

 

Maybe I'll just stop posting for a while and give you rest. (8^D)

 

Sorry if I've offended you in some way.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Hey guys. Let's calm down a little' date=' okay? I think we're all quite capable of being reasonable and making rational arguments rather than throwing slush, eh?[/quote']

Absolutely! You are quite right. Sorry if my posts seem trite or too aggressive. I'll dial it back a bit. My thick headedness seems to come across that way. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Actually' date=' I do. Not for Hero Games specifically, but for another game system. The designer doesn't create a mechanic out of thin air and then find a use for it in the source material. They look at the source material and then come up with a mechanic to help simulate it. So once again. The burden one you to convince me otherwise. [/quote']

If it's another system entirely, it doesn't apply to this discussion.

 

I think it's safe to say that unless the entirety of authors of the Hero System, from first edition to present unanamously state one way or the other we can chalk this up to personal opinion.

 

 

Meaningless to anything I'm talking about. I'll ignore it as failed attempt to insult me. (8^D)

 

Unless you meant something else and can explain it. I am quite thick headed at times.

 

 

This is quite possible. I am thick headed and sometimes it takes a lot to get through. I'm quite willing trudge through multiple posts to try to understand.

 

Not an attempt to insult you. Please understand nothing I've said is an attempt at an insult. You and I both can be thick headed at times, but I know you aren't stupid.

 

 

 

Now I will step back for moment to clarify some things:

1) I started out by giving my opinion on the system and how certain mechanics do have a range of SFX associated with them and why I think that.

2) You respond by telling me how I'm all wrong about this (at least that is how it came across).

3) So I immediately respond by wanting to know why I'm wrong and continue to put forth more reasons why I think what I do.

4) So I'm waiting for you to show some disconnect with my logic with how I came to my conclusion. So far you have failed to do that, but perhaps you haven't been trying to do that at all.

 

Now if all you are doing is giving your own opinion on how the system works and why you think that. Hey, that's fine. But don't do it by trying to tell me why I wrong, unless you are willing to show where I'm missing something or can show where my logic is faulty. I've been proven wrong before and will be proven wrong again in the future. And have changed my mind multiple times about things with the system by having discussions with people on the board here.

 

I'll try to be less frustrating to you in my posts, but don't mistake my thick headedness for anything other than that, thick headedness.

 

Moving on.

Well, from my point of view, I stated simple facts about how the rules work. I may be taking the way I use the rules for granted here though. I'm aware not everyone uses the rules the same way I do, so what I state as "fact" may only be my opinion. Nevertheless, I feel I'm right. If nothing else, I've seen nothing but personal opinion that certain game mechanics are limited to a certain range of SFX. That simply isn't true. Any SFX can be applied to anything. More on this below.

 

 

Probably a typo or something here.

Yes, a typo. Omitted a "can't". "I can't show you..." is how it should have read.

 

If you are referring to your examples, all I did was take your SFX and apply them to the mechanics that they would normally be applied to. That is the way the system was designed to used per the "Reason From SFX". Or am I missing something again?

Follow through with the entire text in the rules regarding Reason From SFX. The key statement there is something to the effect of "what can it do?" A given mechanic does not by default look like, or tend to look like, any given SFX, nor does any SFX represent, or tent to represent, any given Mechanic. Once you've established the "looks like", which is the SFX, you then attach a "what it does" which is the mechanic. The two are seperate and either can be anything.

 

The closest thing the rules have to tendicies and suggestions of attaching certain SFX to certain mechanics is tradition and common use. Lasers are traditionally and commonly RKAs, a suit of plate armor is traditionally and commonly Armor. The point I'm trying to make is that the rules do not force this assumptions or traditions. If anything forces them, it's players.

 

What I'm suggestion to you is to step outside that box and assume for a moment that there is no rules oriented assumption that any game mechanic has only a limited selection of applicable SFX and vice versa.

 

 

Oh, then perhaps you are just giving your opinion on how you view things and why you think that. Again, why attack my reasons for what I think in the process?

I'm not attacking your reasons. If I'm attacking anything it's your point of view.

 

 

(8^D) Dust Raven, we seem to be flip sides of the same coin. I could easily reflect this statement back you and it would seem to apply. I won't take this as an insult either. Probably the result of my thick headedness again. (8^D)

 

Now, if you want to dicuss my reasons/rationale/logic and how it is flawed in some way. I do welcome it. Since if I am missing something, I truely want to know about.

 

But if you want to discuss what your reasons/rationale/logic are, then don't quote my stuff in doing so. Just state your opinion and the reasons why you think that and I'm good. Maybe I've become too comfortable discussing things with you, since I can't seem from angering you. That is not my intent.

 

Maybe I'll just stop posting for a while and give you rest. (8^D)

 

Sorry if I've offended you in some way.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

You are not angering me, Christopher. And I find no fault in your reasoning, just your point of view. I'm sorry if I implied an insult. If you are thick headed, perhaps I am impatient and demanding. Well, I am impatient and demanding, but hopefully not too much.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Hey guys. Let's calm down a little' date=' okay? I think we're all quite capable of being reasonable and making rational arguments rather than throwing slush, eh?[/quote']

 

Sorry. I do not mean to throw slush.

 

On the upside, at least slush is soft enough not to leave a bruise...

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

Okay, let's make this discussion very simple then.

 

I'll pose this as questions so as allow freedom of expression from everyone.

 

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?

2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?

3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack? Why/Why Not?

 

The answers to these questions might clear some things up.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them?

Yes. Since each Characteristic is attempting to simulate a specific innate ability possessed by humans in the source material. Matching these things is complete guesswork of course and whether they succeed at doing so is debatable, but it would seem obvious to me that they representations of the human abilities. (Human SFX)

 

2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them?

Yes. Since Physical SFX and Energy SFX can be easily defined in the source material, and everything should have some type of resistance to Physical or Energy Damage. Why the defence was divided up between these two SFX is perplexing unless they were specfically trying to allow differences to simulate the abilities shown in comics. I don't know. But it seems plausible.

 

3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack?

No. Since the attack would have to be match the SFX of the Defense. A laser beam (Energy Based SFX) would cause Energy Based Damage and thus Physical Defenses would not apply.

 

If someone says Laser Beam could be built vs PD, then the Laser Beam wouldn't be an Energy SFX Based Attack but an Physical SFX Based Attack.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

How familiar are you with quantum mechanics?

[Boulder]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

God, why did I wait so long to join?!!!!

I love this!!! You guys are great!!

Really, you all are, I have not seen one idiodic post (excpet, of cource for mine, but I dont count!)

 

What should be known is that HERO games is made for players and GM's to make what ever they want, and call it anything they want.

A Energy Blast can be used against PD, it has to be defined that when the chacter is made, along with KA.

 

As for SFX, that is determined when the chacter is made and the Gm aproves it, I can see a hand attack being energy, but the main reason they have it listed that way is because it is a adder to STR a physical attack. If you want it to effect ED the GM may say ok to change your str damage to a energy attack, but you would have to state it does that all the time, you can't change the attack type after the chacter is made unless you totally rehach the chacter, (As in remake, between games)

[schir1964]

Re: Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

 

How familiar are you with quantum mechanics?

They don't exist. (8^D)

 

Nice....

 

- Christopher Mullins