Nnd

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

Defences usually considered inappropriate....a defined number of points of a defence...5ER p 265

[Dust Raven]

Re: Nnd

 

Defences usually considered inappropriate....a defined number of points of a defence...5ER p 265

I'll have to look that up. Regardless, "multiple levels of X" really isn't a defined number, it's just saying "more than 1 of X" instead of "presence of X". Of course, I can always contest the ruleing if multiple levels of Hardened rED are "reasonably common" in the campaign world the Power was built for...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Nnd

 

I think that my point might be that 'balance'imposed by a system or even by a GM is not necessarily desireable at some levels. Perhaps an attack that is almost impossible to defend against isn't the result of munckin mind but of a creative idea that it would be wrong to stifle.

 

I do try and build NPCs to a point level rather than simply create what I want and I've never really seen a point to penetrating as an advantage, certainly outside what I'd usually consider to be munchkin builds (I do appreciate the irony of saying this in a thread where I am building an NND that is almost impossible to defend against ): normal penetrating attacks are just not worth it (12d6 normal v 8d6 penetrating: unless you have a def average of 34+ in the game, it just is not worth it) and for killing attacks, being able to damage something (Body) without it hurting much (Stun) never, or very rarely, seems appropriate: certainly an attack that heated up the target would cause a proportional amount of stun in my estimation, so I do not think that penetrating fits the bill, except as a mechanical dodge to a problem, not as a logical build.

 

 

I disagree with you here (which is usually the case )

 

Penetrating anti-tank missles are a good example of the the HERO penetrating mechanic. The tank's armor is only minimally breached (very small hole) but gives access for a secondary explosion that obliterates the interior of the tank. I would probably build it as a compound/linked power. A Primary RKA to penetrate the armor of the tank + a Secondary RKA Explosion that only affects the interior if the Primary got past the armor.

 

Back to the "Heat Vision" idea.

The tank armor is a very good analogy for human skin. OddHat's "Zap-O-Vision" will get past the skin containing the majority of the pain nerves so quickly that the amount of true physical damage (Body) might be far higher than the pain (Stun) indicates (since Stun damage is usually higher than Body rather than on a 1:1 ratio). A Penetrating RKA is an excellent way to model this effect. If you want the attack to sometimes do more Stun then throw it in an attack multipower.

[tesuji]

Re: Nnd

 

 

For 60 points you can get:

In most games the most combat effective option with be the 6d6 NND, but they are all within what I would call an acceptable range, and any NND will be useless against certain targets.

 

For 60 points you can get:

 

agreed the most efficient would generally be the straight nnd, but this comparison goes even farther out of the ballpark in its favor if the NND is "practically" indefensible, as the one you suggest.

 

Keeping 6d6 nnd and 12d6 eb "close enough" is a balancing act between common defensive levels (DAD damage after defenses) and the frequency of the nnd doing no damage.

 

whether 6d6 stun "all the time" is balanced close enough with 12d6 eb vs defenes is certainly a subjective calll, not an absolute however.

 

For 60 points you can get:

if the PCs triumphed, but only just, you managed balance nicely.

balance like levels has many contexts. you can have a balanced encounter out of very imbalanced units and even from very imbalanced system mechanics.

 

for example: A GM could rule that fire Ebs cost only 2 per d6 while all other EBs cost the usual 5. Most people, given hero's sfx neutral mechanics, would likely call that "imbalancing" mechanics wise.

 

BUT if the GM would not approve fire bolt EBs beyond 3d6, in a 12d6 game, there likely would not be a problem with "imbalanced fire characters" as their attack, while cheap, would never be effective enough to hurt someone...much like you are saying the indefensible nnd is ok at 3d6 level since it wont exceed a normal 12d6 eb in "dropping enemies" due to its low dice. This is what i describe as ad hoc, its a specific for this implementation exception.

 

Alternatively, the Gm could scipt for his campaign the "invasion of fire elementals. where the vast majority of the serious enemies have hig ed and 50% damage reduction vs fire or better. In this case, this is a systemic change, a reflection of the GM specifically lowering the value because he knows it will be worth less than a lightning bolt, due to enemies chosen for the campaign.

 

similarly for an invasion of vampires (fire vulnerable) he might raise the price of fire attacks.

 

the latter examples are fine by me, the former not a technique i normally prefer.

 

and for emphasis, it is definitely possible to create balanced encounnters with imbalanced elements.

 

For 60 points you can get:

If you play an infinite number of games, then number and point balancing matter, but we don't (well I don't) so you will always have regional variation in the sample.

 

Understood, but as i am one of those guys who normally dont like using mechanicss differently for pcs and npcs, i try to avoid the thing you are describing.

The problem comes here in managing balance, and, indeed, in what you mean by balance. I am willing to macro manage balance, but the approach that tetsuji advocates is much more focussed and micro managed: actually relate the limitation/advantage values to the incidence of the defence in the player character group as it is the story of them.

I would not say micro-managed. Its easier and less detail to consider if my sample set is the four-six pcs. irs also more accurate to actually limit the sample and analysis to "those who will be attacked by the powers."

 

less work, more precision = win win imo

 

:-)

 

For 60 points you can get:

I think this is a very valid approach but I don't like it first off because it means you need to know the PCs you are building for in advance

IMX and IMO i dont get satisfactorily balanced or well run games if i design challenges and stories without knowledge of the heroes who are the star of the story. Unless the NPC power. trait and abilities are fairly generic i find getting suitable balance and relevence to be more happenstance than not.

 

i think i described my playstyle once as telling the story of these four specific heroes not generic supers team number 12.

 

 

For 60 points you can get:

and second because I WANT some villains to be more effective than others. A given villain may be hard to hurt, but over 10 villains you will get a reasonable spread.

when i want a villain to be "more effective" or specifically more of a threat, i give him more points, not price breaks on advantage costs. Or i give him more "works vs the pc weakness" traits.

I dont need to in essence break the model to vary the potency of enemies, just use it.

 

For 60 points you can get:

To me, if the players and GM have a good time, and the PCs defeat evil and get to quaff ale afterwards, then balance has been acheived. I'm sure everyone would agree witht eh sentiment if not with defining it as 'balance'

i would describe it as a sign of a good game, but saying nothing about balance.

For 60 points you can get:

I often build villains I would not allow for PCs.

 

as do i since the qualifications for "star" and "adversary" are very different, but i dont have one set of mechanics and rules for one and a different set for the other.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

I think that my point might be that 'balance'imposed by a system or even by a GM is not necessarily desireable at some levels. Perhaps an attack that is almost impossible to defend against isn't the result of munckin mind but of a creative idea that it would be wrong to stifle.

 

I don't understand a point here - the GM's imposition of what he perceives as balance may not be desirable, but it is basically THE final authority. There is no true recourse in the end (I am using terms of finalization because of course a decent GM is working with the ethos of his entire play group as a collective). If the GM does a bad job, sure, it's an issue, but there's absolutely nothing the rules can do about it.

 

As to creativity, that's exactly what the GM is there to do, to enable the vision of the PC to realize his character's story. If he isn't doing that, to be blunt, I don't want to discuss it further as a rules/mechanics issue because it's his problem as a GM (which can be discussed as a different matter).

 

Of course, the rules do give the GM guidance and so on, and that's the appropriate place to discuss influences on play behavior from a mechanical/rules perspective.

 

I do try and build NPCs to a point level rather than simply create what I want and I've never really seen a point to penetrating as an advantage, certainly outside what I'd usually consider to be munchkin builds (I do appreciate the irony of saying this in a thread where I am building an NND that is almost impossible to defend against ):

 

There's that sense of GM balance!

 

But on point, you have a "right" and it sounds to me like a great idea to employ that build, as it forms a story you wish to have the players participate in.

 

I don't consider Penetrating innately munchkin territory, personally.

 

normal penetrating attacks are just not worth it (12d6 normal v 8d6 penetrating: unless you have a def average of 34+ in the game, it just is not worth it) and for killing attacks, being able to damage something (Body) without it hurting much (Stun) never, or very rarely, seems appropriate: certainly an attack that heated up the target would cause a proportional amount of stun in my estimation, so I do not think that penetrating fits the bill, except as a mechanical dodge to a problem, not as a logical build.

 

They're worth it to break stuff.

 

I agree they're rarely useful in real PC circumstances, but given an NPC has no restrictions and therefore there are no concerns on cost-effectiveness, that's why I mentioned it in this case - but I'm not trying to sell the idea, I was just spit-balling, though it sounds useful to me for a certain thing.

 

Also, as a side note, I think Penetrating works really well when you stack - such as with IPE and having a Desol Invisible character attacking...um, not that I'd ever do that... (actually it's one of my favorite once-every-couple-years tricks for villainous NPCs)

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

I think to build an attack/defence matrix based on sfx is perfectly possible, for a given game or even for a system genre. It would be nice to see more sfx discussion and integration discussion, but I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on that one. Hopefully TUB will be what I'm looking for, just in time for....

 

 

 

Hoorah!

Maybe I'll finally finish Dark Champions by then, too, and we can debate the finer points of modern urban HERO.

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

They're worth it to break stuff.

 

I agree they're rarely useful in real PC circumstances, but given an NPC has no restrictions and therefore there are no concerns on cost-effectiveness, that's why I mentioned it in this case - but I'm not trying to sell the idea, I was just spit-balling, though it sounds useful to me for a certain thing.

 

Also, as a side note, I think Penetrating works really well when you stack - such as with IPE and having a Desol Invisible character attacking...um, not that I'd ever do that... (actually it's one of my favorite once-every-couple-years tricks for villainous NPCs)

 

Penetrating is part of the Rock-Paper-Scissors of HERO combat.

 

Penetrating is the trump against the absolutes of Damage Reduction and Damage Reduction based Invulnerability.

 

Penetrating is the answer to the problem of DEF 30 tank armor (Double Penetrating when the armor is hardened).

 

If you ever send a PC against giant monsters or military hardware, Penetrating is the tool you're looking for.

 

As to cries of "Munchkin", there's no such beastie when it comes to rules.

 

Rules work or don't work in context; they are beyond good and munchkin.

 

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

It's amazing I still can't rep you, OddHat, I feel like I've repped enough since last time, but oh well.

[Frenchman]

Re: Nnd

 

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I had to comment on:

The defence tot he latter SHOULD be that the object doesn't contain any waters' date=' but you can't have 'negative definers' for NND.[/quote']

 

NND (LS: Safe in Intense Heat OR Target is made entirely from non-liquids)

 

The restriction against Negative Definitions is pretty silly, as anyone with siblings will be able to turn a negative into a positive in about 4 seconds, tops.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Nnd

 

I agree with Frenchman.. It's a silly rule to put on a power that's allready under the hairy eye of the GM.

 

If you want a character to have an unstoppable attack, just tell me and we can try to figure out how to make a cool story with him.. Same thing on another thread about the regeneration multipower - Just need to sit down and talk about the story and find out why he wants that particular power - is it a metagame thing, can we make a cool story with it, WORK with me here

 

I'd say about 20 percent of the gamers I've known treat the GM as the enemy, or as some sort of opponent to beat..

 

I'd say 20 percent of the GMs Ive known reinforce that notion in those gamers..

 

Frustrates the hell out of me, too... What a waste of a game.

 

hmm.. I think I'm starting to understand what Sean Waters was getting at, though. I like balance and all, but it isn't necessarily some sort of absolute when it comes to stories - As long as the PC's and the GM are on the same page and working together, that is.

---------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Waters

I think that my point might be that 'balance'imposed by a system or even by a GM is not necessarily desireable at some levels. Perhaps an attack that is almost impossible to defend against isn't the result of munckin mind but of a creative idea that it would be wrong to stifle.

--------------------

I would change that to "Not necessarily NEEDED" rather than "desirable", and agree wholeheartedly.

 

_CraterMaker

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Nnd

 

Do you believe that can adequately be done case-by-case by the GM and play group?

 

I think it could. I think that if the GM does it consistently then the players would aid in implementing it. If someone had a 30ED flame based force field and Firewing shoots at him and the GM awards an extra 5 ED toward protecting against the STUN that would seem logical. It would mean that players might begin to react to the gameworld the way the characters would instead of reacting to the game mechanics the way players do.

 

As Sean said, any GM could set up their own matrix for any given game they are running that could act as a touchstone, what the system needs is some guidance to GMs on how they would do this (not to set it out centrally but to devolve that decision to the appropriate level - I never thought I would be able to discuss subsidiarity on these boards and outside the NGD!).

 

As an aside' date=' I look forward to discussing these things with you and Sean in person next year, the trip we didn't take to London this year I am pretty positive we will do next year. My wife is jonesing to go and now that she's at least reasonably established her business she can take off next year. [/quote']

 

Just to second Sean again. Hurrah!

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

..............

They're worth it to break stuff.

.................

 

Grr.

 

Metagaming.

 

Bad zornwil.

 

I'm not saying penetrating is not 'useful' I'm saying it is not game-logical.

 

I CAN see it POSSIBLY being SORT OF game logical for inanimate objects, but that is it. Even then it doesn't make me happy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

......................

Penetrating is the answer to the problem of DEF 30 tank armor (Double Penetrating when the armor is hardened).

......................

 

 

Internal game consistency and more realistic levels of tank armour (15-20 def, tops) is the answer to 30 DEF hardenned armour IMO.

 

That level of armour on a 'normal' object is just not realistic to my mind, and is part of the points escalation caused by the somewhat schizoid approach of Hero to whether damage is exponential or geometric or something else.

 

I think someone somewhere needs to make up their mind, and expose some of the sacred underpinnings of the system.

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

Grr.

 

Metagaming.

 

 

In a game where SFX and Mechanics are separated, players and GMs will look at problems from both perspectives.

 

I'm not saying penetrating is not 'useful' I'm saying it is not game-logical.

 

I CAN see it POSSIBLY being SORT OF game logical for inanimate objects, but that is it. Even then it doesn't make me happy.

 

By game-logical, do you mean that you have trouble figuring out a SFX that's appropriate for a penetrating attack? Or that penetrating and armor piercing should be the same advantage? I'm not parsing you here.

 

 

Internal game consistency and more realistic levels of tank armour (15-20 def, tops) is the answer to 30 DEF hardenned armour IMO.

 

That level of armour on a 'normal' object is just not realistic to my mind, and is part of the points escalation caused by the somewhat schizoid approach of Hero to whether damage is exponential or geometric or something else.

 

"Realistic" or not, for whatever "realistic" is worth in a game where people fly and lift tanks, it's the way things stand in the official setting.

 

No, I'm not particularly happy about it either.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

By game-logical' date=' do you mean that you have trouble figuring out a SFX that's appropriate for a penetrating attack? Or that penetrating and armor piercing should be the same advantage? I'm not parsing you here.[/quote']

 

I'll move aside so you can parse me, if you like. Yes, I mean I have problems thinking of an sfx that fits penetrating (or more appropriately I never seem to find penetrating an appropriate way to model what I'm after).

 

OK, I can think of one: a killing attack that you don't know is killing you, but I have trouble imagining when I'd ever want that built.

 

I can also see how you can use it to penetrate heavy armour/damage the inanimate - i.e. where the stun/body disconnect does not matter.

 

I don't like it as it is an absolute effect (in that it is on or off) and a Focus/FoWa breaker - well it can be used as such - without much sfx justification IMO.

 

 

"Realistic" or not, for whatever "realistic" is worth in a game where people fly and lift tanks, it's the way things stand in the official setting.

 

No, I'm not particularly happy about it either.

 

Not just realism - internal consistency - if you look in the 'Breaking Things' section, heavy armour is supposed to have a DEF value of 19, and tank front armour is down as 20 (p448/449). Now it is a shame there is even that much deviation on facing pages, but I really cannot square that with the enormous jump to 30 DEF in the vehicles section

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

I'll move aside so you can parse me, if you like. Yes, I mean I have problems thinking of an sfx that fits penetrating (or more appropriately I never seem to find penetrating an appropriate way to model what I'm after).

 

OK, I can think of one: a killing attack that you don't know is killing you, but I have trouble imagining when I'd ever want that built.

 

I can also see how you can use it to penetrate heavy armour/damage the inanimate - i.e. where the stun/body disconnect does not matter.

 

From SFX, I'd say it's the scalpel or mono-filament blade so sharp it cuts without pain, the needle sharp point that slips through armor, the Ki strike that kills no matter how powerful your Iron Shirt Technique may be, etc. However, those SFX can work just as well for armor piercing and other game elements.

 

I don't like it as it is an absolute effect (in that it is on or off) and a Focus/FoWa breaker - well it can be used as such - without much sfx justification IMO.

 

I don't like that either, so I generally don't use it like that.

 

Not just realism - internal consistency - if you look in the 'Breaking Things' section, heavy armour is supposed to have a DEF value of 19, and tank front armour is down as 20 (p448/449). Now it is a shame there is even that much deviation on facing pages, but I really cannot square that with the enormous jump to 30 DEF in the vehicles section

 

And staking up individual sticks of dynamite will quickly get you a bigger blast than explosives that, in the real world, are hundreds or thousands of times more powerful. I doubt that Steve will ever budge on that, so I change it in my games.

 

Still, as the system stands now, Penetrating remains a useful game element.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Grr.

 

Metagaming.

 

Bad zornwil.

 

I'm not saying penetrating is not 'useful' I'm saying it is not game-logical.

 

I CAN see it POSSIBLY being SORT OF game logical for inanimate objects, but that is it. Even then it doesn't make me happy.

That's not metagaming. Why wouldn't anyone engaged in fighting with guys with tough stuff make things to break tough stuff?

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

And as another note it IS a game. If we were just roleplaying, then our rules and systems would be entirely different, with no game elements, just elements to help us tell stories without that competitive element.

 

The two go together. "I want my character to be able to slice through objects, however slowly, because he's got this corrosive ability, and because I want to have the tactical element for him to be valuable to combat for that reason."

 

PS - you can't separate or innately disparage metagaming - it's the very basis of character creation.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Internal game consistency and more realistic levels of tank armour (15-20 def, tops) is the answer to 30 DEF hardenned armour IMO.

 

That level of armour on a 'normal' object is just not realistic to my mind, and is part of the points escalation caused by the somewhat schizoid approach of Hero to whether damage is exponential or geometric or something else.

 

I think someone somewhere needs to make up their mind, and expose some of the sacred underpinnings of the system.

I see it 2 ways.

 

One is that the numberings are irrelevant, the system is fundamentally DIY, both a strength and a weakness. For your game, you are required to make decisions about these things. I almost never consult the book's values on object toughness, I don't need to because I know the attack and defense levels that are required in my game, and the book doesn't.

 

But the other is that there are many mechanical assumptions made at the least by genre, and, to your point, the "system's" (in terms of published materials) refusal to discuss base assumptions and philosophies make for many of these discussions and arguments. Players and GMs should know why tules exist and what those rules rely on and what the scope of a system is. Note I'm not picking on just 5th/Steve - this is a problem endemic to so-called 1st and 2nd generation RPGs, certainly an issue of HERO's entire history because people didn't consider that closely (and was largely irrelevant the narrower the scope of the game, so Champions, for example, does better without much explanation because we immediately know a lot about what goes into 4-color supers, whereas when it became "universal" we are left wondering a lot about what game physics and play experience they are gettinga t). And while 3rd generation games get lots of credit for doing this, I think that's half-hype, even some of the best of 3rd generation games (namely Dogs in the Vineyard) hide a few objectives and interplay of mechanics from players/GMs.

 

Then again, easy to criticize...one concern is that if you explain too much then players don't get the joy of the discovery process. For example, I am firmly convinced that Baker's blowing off of death in DitV by claiming it's hard to die and discussing that GMs don't have to hold back in DitV is really to get players to risk more when they first try the system, so that by doing so everyone learns more. It's pretty effective, but from a GMing perspective wish I had understood more about this early on.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

I think it could. I think that if the GM does it consistently then the players would aid in implementing it. If someone had a 30ED flame based force field and Firewing shoots at him and the GM awards an extra 5 ED toward protecting against the STUN that would seem logical. It would mean that players might begin to react to the gameworld the way the characters would instead of reacting to the game mechanics the way players do.

 

As Sean said, any GM could set up their own matrix for any given game they are running that could act as a touchstone, what the system needs is some guidance to GMs on how they would do this (not to set it out centrally but to devolve that decision to the appropriate level - I never thought I would be able to discuss subsidiarity on these boards and outside the NGD!).

 

 

 

Just to second Sean again. Hurrah!

 

Doc

I think my question was a bit askew - I meant don't you think that people can already do so, that a formalized structure (which I meant as in opposition to case-by-case) is unnecessary?

 

And yes, looking forward to it!

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

And as another note it IS a game. If we were just roleplaying, then our rules and systems would be entirely different, with no game elements, just elements to help us tell stories without that competitive element.

 

The two go together. "I want my character to be able to slice through objects, however slowly, because he's got this corrosive ability, and because I want to have the tactical element for him to be valuable to combat for that reason."

 

PS - you can't separate or innately disparage metagaming - it's the very basis of character creation.

 

Yup, though I'd phrase it slightly differently. We have to pay attention to the mechanics during character creation and the game itself, because those mechanics are part of the game. You can move to a more narrative style; I often do (ask anyone who has played in my GenCon games, where I sometimes go too far to the narrative side in order to speed play, especially near the end of the time slot). Still, without the mechanics it is not HERO System. Going to the other side, completely ignoring special effects and "common and dramatic sense" also takes you away from how HERO is meant to work.

 

None of which means that the mechanics can't benefit from all sorts of tweaks.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Yup, though I'd phrase it slightly differently. We have to pay attention to the mechanics during character creation and the game itself, because those mechanics are part of the game. You can move to a more narrative style; I often do (ask anyone who has played in my GenCon games, where I sometimes go too far to the narrative side in order to speed play, especially near the end of the time slot). Still, without the mechanics it is not HERO System. Going to the other side, completely ignoring special effects and "common and dramatic sense" also takes you away from how HERO is meant to work.

 

None of which means that the mechanics can't benefit from all sorts of tweaks.

Well-designed mechanics encourage "the right kind" of metagaming. HERO encourages it to the extent that it is in some large part and primarily used in that large part as a tactical combat game, as you allude to, so in order to create the characters appropriate we choose details that boost those chances but we should, in theory, find that those details mesh with the story we are telling for that character, including such as "this guy always finds the weak spot." Is that munchkinery, is that metagaming? Well, it's how you build Batman or James Bond...so you tell me... To me, it sounds absolutely fine. The problem is more when people try to promote their story above others or "break" the plots/situations so that it is a simple exercise in proving mastery of the player, not the character.

 

Even the so-called narrative-heavy games, as they are games, have the same issues. In Dogs, you quickly find that the smartest thing to do is to get into lots of Talking conflicts and deliberately take Fallout. Is that munchkinery? Well, could be...depends why and how much you do it. If you do it right, you are promoting the situation unfolding because these Talking conflicts and the way Fallout works will help move that along as well as building up your character's strength. If you do it wrong, you're getting really annoying as you walk into a bakery and suddenly, out of the blue, say "Um, my character engages the baker in a Conflict with Stakes being I want a loaf of bread for free."

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Nnd

 

I think my question was a bit askew - I meant don't you think that people can already do so' date=' that a formalized structure (which I meant as in opposition to case-by-case) is unnecessary? [/quote']

 

People can do so but there is no discussion in the rules anywhere on how to get that kind of feel to the game.

 

Old hands know that the critical part of any game is the setting up by the GM and the design of the heroes and villains. All of that kind of thing can be written into the design of attacks and defences making it easy for the GM to get the playstyle he's looking for.

 

A newbie has no chance and the gameplay will, most likely, be the lowest achievable by the game and thus less likely to grab and inspire and make them think - yeah Hero rocks....

 

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Nnd

 

PS - you can't separate or innately disparage metagaming - it's the very basis of character creation.

 

I want to rep for this but, alas, I cannot.

 

something about spreading it around. Like Rep is some kind of preserve. Rep Preserves! goes good on toast.

[Warp9]

Re: Nnd

 

Not just realism - internal consistency - if you look in the 'Breaking Things' section' date=' heavy armour is supposed to have a DEF value of 19, and tank front armour is down as 20 (p448/449). Now it is a shame there is even that much deviation on facing pages, but I really cannot square that with the enormous jump to 30 DEF in the vehicles section[/quote']

And it seems to me that this internal consistency is especially important to a system like HERO. I base this statement on the idea that the portability of game constructs is very important in a Universal System.

 

HERO is great because you can build anything you can imagine. And it becomes really awesome when people from all over can share their creations on various internet sites.

 

These days I can find HERO builds for characters from almost any popular book or movie.

 

But without clear standards (or worse, inconsistent standars), these creations will not be as portable.