Some Thoughts On Rules

[Sean Waters]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

For Homing' date=' the best comparison isn't really to levels but to AOE:1HAc and No Range Modifier, two advantages that together reduce the target for all practical purposes to DCV0, at a cost of +1. This is not to say that Homing should cost +1; Homing just shouldn't add up to more than +1. Maybe +1/4 per doubling of shots? +1/4 for 2, +1/2 for 4, +3/4 for 8, +1 for 16, with the rule that there must be a reasonably obvious way to "turn off" the missile?[/quote']

 

This approach assumes that the DCV of the target is irrelevant. Dodging homing missiles should still be possible, just really pretty difficult.

 

I think the 'no range modifier' is probably pretty important for homing missiles though: good thought.

 

Possible they should also consider 'indirect', depending on build concept: even for that initial lock on it could be important if they are sniffing out pheremones or heat signatures that can waft around corners.

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Hmmm' date=' well, hang on, if the campaign really has no effective (PS/EDIT - or let's say not much of a) limit on CV, everyone's playing by inflated CV rules, likely, in which case it IS better to judge the effect based on that.[/quote']

 

In a campaign with unlimited CV and high or no active point limits, Autofire would be a much worse deal than Two Weapon Fighting, Rapid Attack, and levels, and No Range Modifier would generally be a worse deal than buying penalty skill levels versus range. If hit locations were in play, buying Penalty Skill Levels versus Hit Locations would be a much better deal than buying twice as many DCs for all but the weakest attacks. The point being, Advantages are generally not nearly as good a deal as skills and skill levels when compared in isolation; on the system level, unless you scrap everything and re-work the system from zero, it makes much more sense to compare Advantages to Advantages than to compare Advantages to Advantage-Skill-Limit combinations when discussing the addition of a new game element.

 

That members of the "Damage Reduction Doesn't Scale" crowd have not already brought this up is surprising.

[zornwil]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

In a campaign with unlimited CV and high or no active point limits, Autofire would be a much worse deal than Two Weapon Fighting, Rapid Attack, and levels, and No Range Modifier would generally be a worse deal than buying penalty skill levels versus range. If hit locations were in play, buying Penalty Skill Levels versus Hit Locations would be a much better deal than buying twice as many DCs for all but the weakest attacks. The point being, Advantages are generally not nearly as good a deal as skills and skill levels when compared in isolation; on the system level, unless you scrap everything and re-work the system from zero, it makes much more sense to compare Advantages to Advantages than to compare Advantages to Advantage-Skill-Limit combinations when discussing the addition of a new game element.

 

That members of the "Damage Reduction Doesn't Scale" crowd have not already brought this up is surprising.

While all of what you're saying is true, I'm not sure how it makes a difference against what I'm saying - if it's cheaper and accepted in actual practice for that campaign for players to buy high CVs, then in essence that is really the bar that should be used in costing what is basically an increased-CV purchase. I'm not going to address nor should anyone how to fix the rest of what might or might not be screwed up in that campaign.

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

While all of what you're saying is true' date=' I'm not sure how it makes a difference against what I'm saying - if it's cheaper and accepted in actual practice for that campaign for players to buy high CVs, then in essence that is really the bar that should be used in costing what is basically an increased-CV purchase.[/quote']

 

I don't see Homing as an increased CV purchase; it changes how the power works, and is thus an advantage. It should have an appropriate price determined by comparing its price against other advantages, not against skill level - limitation - advantage combinations.

 

We can build all sorts of things more cheaply with skill levels than with advantages, and in some campaigns and settings that's appropriate. In the case of Homing in the context of a standard Champions campaign, it feels like a bad call.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

One thought on the "Homing" idea that has been floating around in my head for awhile without a satisfactory conclusion...

 

I'd like to come up with a mechanic for a power that uses an "inherent" OCV rather than the attackers OCV, one that balances out in a reasonable fashion. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a method I'm happy with that is fully 5th Edition build compatable and that "feels right", points-costwise.

 

Being able to drop a "Uses inherent OCV" limit and then buy the OCV up to the appropriate level would work for a LOT of the builds I'd like to see from a SIM POV. Fragmentation effects become an Autofire non-selective AOE or Explosion with their own OCV to represent "fragmentation density", self guided missiles become easy, etc...

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

One thought on the "Homing" idea that has been floating around in my head for awhile without a satisfactory conclusion...

 

I'd like to come up with a mechanic for a power that uses an "inherent" OCV rather than the attackers OCV, one that balances out in a reasonable fashion. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a method I'm happy with that is fully 5th Edition build compatable and that "feels right", points-costwise.

 

Being able to drop a "Uses inherent OCV" limit and then buy the OCV up to the appropriate level would work for a LOT of the builds I'd like to see from a SIM POV. Fragmentation effects become an Autofire non-selective AOE or Explosion with their own OCV to represent "fragmentation density", self guided missiles become easy, etc...

 

Summon works fairly well for this, the main issues being that you lose 1 phase after the "homing missile" or "inherent OCV attack" is summoned, and that you can end up with disproportionately powerful attacks if you use the 5 point doubling rules. There's also the caution against using summon to simulate other powers, but in this case there's no other official mechanic that can simulate an attack with it's own OCV any better.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Summon works fairly well for this' date=' the main issues being that you lose 1 phase after the "homing missile" or "inherent OCV attack" is summoned, and that you can end up with disproportionately powerful attacks if you use the 5 point doubling rules. There's also the caution against using summon to simulate other powers, but in this case there's no other official mechanic that can simulate an attack with it's own OCV any better.[/quote']

 

And I have gradually warmed to the Summon approach. It' still potentially WAY more work and a lot messier than an approach that involves replacing the attackers OCV with a built in OCV. There used to be just such a mechanic back in 3rd, in the original Golden Age of Champions and the Armory. I'd like to see it's return in a modern form. Makes for a LOT simpler builds.

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

And I have gradually warmed to the Summon approach. It' still potentially WAY more work and a lot messier than an approach that involves replacing the attackers OCV with a built in OCV. There used to be just such a mechanic back in 3rd' date=' in the original Golden Age of Champions and the Armory. I'd like to see it's return in a modern form. Makes for a LOT simpler builds.[/quote']

 

I actually like the idea of an "Independent OCV" advantage myself. Considering that +1/2 gets an attack an effective OCV of 13 in a Standard Champions campaign (AOE1HA again), maybe something like +0 for 7, +1/4 for 10, +1/2 for 13 would be appropriate.

[Sketchpad]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Though I'm with everyone else in that I've never felt the urgent need for more than Personal or Universal on a Focus' date=' I have speculated about stuff in between, like "can only be used by people who know the secret handshake/Parachronic Gravitometrics skill/chi technique that takes years of practice". I'm curious about those levels of granularity M&M chose. Can you go into them, without the game-specific mechanics?[/quote']

 

Basically, the more ranks you put in it, the narrower the Restriction. Something like Thor, keeping with my example, I would say would be around rank 2 or 3

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Basically' date=' the more ranks you put in it, the narrower the Restriction. Something like Thor, keeping with my example, I would say would be around rank 2 or 3[/quote']

 

I can see the rank system. The problem is that HERO already gives you this as a 0 point modifier in the focus rules. In a campaign where you ask HERO players to pay for the level of restriction on their focus, I'm not sure all that many will want to do so, especially as it would raise active point costs without having significant combat value in most campaigns.

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Looking at all the math, can't we just buy 2-point CSLs with the special effect that the attack homes in on the target?

 

If that's not good enough, why not just buy a vehicle to represent what's homing in and have it make a move-through attack. Not complicated enough?

 

I guess you could use extra-dimensional movement to a dimension where there's a missile homing in on your target. Or you could use a "Dispel Life" power with Extra Time, Cumulative, and Continuous. Or...

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Looking at all the math' date=' can't we just buy 2-point CSLs with the special effect that the attack homes in on the target?[/quote']

 

You could, but you wouldn't get the effect of the missile chasing the target phase after phase until it either hit, ran out of fuel, or was knocked out of the air.

 

 

If that's not good enough, why not just buy a vehicle to represent what's homing in and have it make a move-through attack. Not complicated enough?

 

Works fine, and that's the default by the rules solution. The character uses Summon to call the vehicle, then sends it after the target.

[zornwil]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Summon works fairly well for this' date=' the main issues being that you lose 1 phase after the "homing missile" or "inherent OCV attack" is summoned, and that you can end up with disproportionately powerful attacks if you use the 5 point doubling rules. There's also the caution against using summon to simulate other powers, but in this case there's no other official mechanic that can simulate an attack with it's own OCV any better.[/quote']

I could have sworn there was something in either base weaponry or traps in some book that built items with their own CV. I was thinking it was simply bought up from 0 but I don't know for sure, obviously I may not be remembering it correctly at all. I can't find it in 5ER or any traps in DC. Will have to see if there's traps built aside from with AoE in FH...

[tesuji]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

 

I don't see Homing as an increased CV purchase; it changes how the power works, and is thus an advantage.

Adders change how powers work, they aren't advantages.

Limitations change how powers work. they aren't advantages.

Just beause something changes how powers work doesn't make it an advantage,.

The difference between "buy skill levels" and "buy an addder" is nominal, at best.

 

It should have an appropriate price determined by comparing its price against other advantages, not against skill level - limitation - advantage combinations.

But if it is an adder, then that self-imposed blinder (only olook at other advantages) doesn't apply.

 

Going back to comparisons to existing elements within the hero system...

 

Going with the +1/2 for four passes... I dont think many are suggesting +1/4 for this many passes so it seems a good conservative call.

 

12d6 EB with +1/2 four passes homing costs 90 cp.

 

for same price i get 12d6 EB and +15 DEX (no figs) and the resulting +5 OCV gains me a better likelihood of getting a hit than the four passes homing does ASSUMING NO INTERCEPTION and it happens right away not some time down the road.

 

In addition MR Dex gains +5 Cv for all his physical attacks not just the hming one, gains +5 DCV gains +5 to dex skill rolls and a better initiative order.

 

these are not comparable benefits.

 

HERO costs are based on comparable costs equalling comparable effectiveness. Its also not built with too many blinders in mind.

 

We can build all sorts of things more cheaply with skill levels than with advantages, and in some campaigns and settings that's appropriate. In the case of Homing in the context of a standard Champions campaign, it feels like a bad call.

 

the purpose and meat and potatoes of h9oming is to get a hit instead of a miss. it doesn't affect "how much damage do i do" or "what defenses do you get to use"or any of those things. All it does is give you a better chance of hitting with several funky limitations as to how that gain is accomplished.

 

it is specifically about "do i hit you or not" and thats it... the rest is sfx and flavor.

 

to then say that you wish to exclude from pricing consideration the typical eays of directly affecting "do i hit you or not"... OCV and DCV and skill levels and dex for cv... is deliberately chosing to ignore the most direct comparisons, to the simplest purchasable commodities providing similar benefits.

 

its like deciding to judge the worth of a food for a low carb diet but refusing to look at the carbs count.

 

its like trying to price a gold ring but refusing to look at the market price of gold.

 

its certainly a novel approach, i grant you that.

 

if a Gm would hesitate to allow +4 CV in his campaign, he SHOULD be just as hesitant about allowing four pass homing because it produces when it does its job similar to hit chances. If he would allow the "limited" +4 Cv, then maybe he should allow the homing too, as it is effectively a limited boost in "to hit chance" just like a limited +4 CV would be.

 

burying it in an advantage, refusing to consider it comparable to buying extra CV levels, etc... is simply hiding its true effect, disguising it, maybe successfully masking the in fact gains under the veil of "sounds cool sfx".

 

and making it yet another "well this isn;t really worth it" advantage isn't really going to accomplish the goal which is to effectively add it to the play.

 

but we clearly wont disagree and no amount of math, analysis and comparison will change that "feeling."

 

So, have fun.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

The difference between "buy skill levels" and "buy an addder" is nominal' date=' at best.[/quote']

 

Especially if you were to view "+1 OCV" as a 2 point adder rather than a restricted skill level - and I can see merits to both approaches. Skill level only wins out to prevent those 2 points being further eroded by limitations.

 

Your numerical example is dead on. I think the "attack continues independent of the character until it hits" structure has no good model in Hero. The best structure seems to be a bonus to OCV and a limitation that the attack takes extra time to have its effect to the extent the bonus OCV is needed, but it's kludgy and a balanced point cost is tough to come up with.

 

The Summon is equally kludgy - why not Summon something that attacks again after it hits, for likely the same cost?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Especially if you were to view "+1 OCV" as a 2 point adder rather than a restricted skill level - and I can see merits to both approaches. Skill level only wins out to prevent those 2 points being further eroded by limitations.

 

Your numerical example is dead on. I think the "attack continues independent of the character until it hits" structure has no good model in Hero. The best structure seems to be a bonus to OCV and a limitation that the attack takes extra time to have its effect to the extent the bonus OCV is needed, but it's kludgy and a balanced point cost is tough to come up with.

 

The Summon is equally kludgy - why not Summon something that attacks again after it hits, for likely the same cost?

 

To this point... that such a concept really doesn't "fit" in Hero... I totally agree as stated earlier.

 

This raises a deeper question that I would frame as follows:

 

1) Being Point Based, Hero systematically strives for "balance" via relatiave point costs. (Five points for one power is assumed to be equally effective as 5 points for another.)

 

2) We know that equal relative point worth is a joke, because value is only determined in play... and Hero claims to be neutral about "what kind of play" should result.

 

3) That being said, part of this drive for "balance" is based on a very core concept of scalability. More of one thing should be countered or balanced by more of another. I think this holds in Hero for the most part.

 

4) Certain concepts... even if they seem to be part of accepted source material inspiration... are just SO FAR "outside the scope" of balance that Hero is throwing up countless warning signs that say, "Neat idea... but it really isn't playable." Those warning signs are high kludge, ramping OCV levels, multiple power combinations and messy SFX justifications.

 

Primarily those concepts revolve around "absolutes"... always hits, lasts forever, invulnerable... or in this case, chases until it hits.

 

In most cases, this is not to say the concepts are "bad" but they are "bad for Hero." By that I mean they break a paradigm that makes the concept INHERENTLY TOO POWERFUL for play with most straight forward Hero builds. Hero even has such a "no-no" vs. out of scope concepts built right into the rules.

 

Area of Effect: Large area attacks, in concept, should not only hit more targets... but should do a LOT more damage to a single target because it hits more or all of the target than a narrower, smaller attack (Explosion vs. bullet or beam) In Hero, size and shape are inherently SFX... not to have a mechanical effect... so AoE is relegated to "hitting more, easier" than "doing more damage." It is, in fact, clearly forcing players to recognize that "more damage is just that, more damage. You want it, buy more dice, don't build a wacky kludge."

 

Many concepts just aren't meant to be in Hero... or if they are, they are basic builds with SFX hand waving stuff like "chased around the field by a homing missile" which is how I'd rule it.

 

So why do we keep having these conversations? Take a page from Nancy Reagan and "Just say no!"

[zornwil]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

To this point... that such a concept really doesn't "fit" in Hero... I totally agree as stated earlier.

 

This raises a deeper question that I would frame as follows:

 

1) Being Point Based, Hero systematically strives for "balance" via relatiave point costs. (Five points for one power is assumed to be equally effective as 5 points for another.)

 

2) We know that equal relative point worth is a joke, because value is only determined in play... and Hero claims to be neutral about "what kind of play" should result.

 

3) That being said, certain this drive for "balance" is based on a very core concept of scalability. More of one thing should be countered or balanced by more of another. I think this holds in Hero for the most part.

 

4) Certain concepts... even if they seem to be part of accepted source material inspiration... are just SO FAR "outside the scope" of balance that Hero is throwing up countless warning signs that say, "Neat idea... but it really isn't playable." Those warning signs are high kludge, ramping OCV levels, multiple power combinations and messy SFX justifications.

 

Primarily those concepts revolve around "absolutes"... always hits, lasts forever, invulnerable... or in this case, chases until it hits.

 

In most cases, this is not to say the concepts are "bad" but they are "bad for Hero." By that I mean they break a paradigm that makes the concept INHERENTLY TOO POWERFUL for play with most straight forward Hero builds. Hero even has such a "no-no" vs. out of scope concepts built right into the rules.

 

Area of Effect: Large area attacks, in concept, should not only hit more targets... but should do a LOT more damage to a single target because it hits more or all of the target than a narrower, smaller attack (Explosion vs. bullet or beam) In Hero, size and shape are inherently SFX... not to have a mechanical effect... so AoE is relegated to "hitting more easier" than "doing more damage." It is, in fact, clearly forcing players to recognize that "more damage is just that, more damage. You want it, buy more dice, don't build a wacky kludge."

 

Many concepts just aren't meant to be in Hero... or if they are, they are basic builds with SFX hand waving stuff like "chased around the field by a homing missile" which is how I'd rule it.

 

So why do we keep having these conversations. Take a page from Nancy Reagan and "Just say no!"

I agree with everything up to "just say no."

 

If we're talking about a scalable core rules expansion, I'd agree to "just say no." But if we're talking about "in Joe's game," this will depend entirely on the game, and to say that a workable invulnerability or homing device or such is inherently wrong is not valid from my perspective, and it's not valid precisely because "Hero claims to be neutral about "what kind of play" should result" (which you properly juxtapose with the problems of balance in play).

 

The problem here is that HERO doesn't even have a purported play experience. Because of that atheism-of-experience, wherein we may play "any" kind of game, and because of the related so-called "toolkit" nature of HERO, participants are asked to build their own game. Because they are building their own game without either play experience support or even, really, guidelines for play experience (we have guidelines for genra, but that's really something different, that's setting, not aesthetics and shared space rules), there are few clear boundaries and no solid expectations. The system confuses this even moreso with non-scalable powers (I call them absolutes) such as Damage Reduction.

 

As a result, "how" broken an invulnerability based on SFX in a superhero game is highly questionable, an open debate, as we witness. I can entirely agree with you that such things have no place in the "HERO system" as it stands today and likely as it would stand in most if not all reasonable evolutions. But from within a game perspective, given this "system" is NOT governing play experience, we are hard-pressed to discover the true boundaries (incidentally, I would say it certainly does AFFECT and INFLUENCE play experience, but it certainly doesn't "govern" it!)

 

This is where our beloved system shows its great limitations. In many other more focused systems we don't even have to debate these thngs because they are either accounted for (e.g., M&M covers "invulnerability" even if it isn't "really" invulnerability, it works for exactly that game and you really don't need to modify it, or if you do you are in fact changing a play experience factor) or are very obviously not going to work (e.g., inserting invulnerability into Dogs in the Vineyard simply won't work and you can look at the mechanics and see it simply has no place without a very clear overturning of the game's basic precepts).

 

This all comes back to the HERO mentality of having one's cake and eating it, too - that we can have "any" kind of gaming experience with HERO while it purports to be a coherent "system" or even "game" (as opposed to a true toolkit or let's say at least a metasystem, which, if it were, would be something to MAKE systems and games with).

 

The real solutions are 2-fold, IMHO, either in tandem or as individual separate solutions:

- regardless of whether we ever see HERO's core system book change, the release of a true "Here is how HERO is built, here is the underlying real toolkit" would more clearly facilitate and circumscribe all of these types of conversations

- the release of specific HERO games which guide specific play eperiences - not unlike the earlier HERO games before becoming a "universal" system

 

None of this of course changes the basic "I want to tinker and add something" approach but it can entirely clarify the logic by which we address it.

 

I, for one, would very simply want to see the complete rationale for the absolute powers - this alone would be compelling in speaking to the REAL design limitations of HERO.

 

I am a strong advocate of capitalism - but I really do dislike the fact that commerciality has driven HERO, GURPS, d20, and other such systems to cling tenaciously to marketing hyperbole about how their systems are "universal" and "do anything."

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

 

but we clearly wont disagree and no amount of math, analysis and comparison will change that "feeling."

 

If you do the math on Autofire with a 60 active point power vs Rapid Fire + Rapid Attack + Two Weapon Fighting + Skill levels with Rapid Fire, and you will find that the skill based approach is generally cheaper. Do the math on A0E1HA vs +5 skill levels (the average advantage in CV gained by AoE1HA) and you'll find that the skill level approach is far cheaper. Sometimes, in some settings, the cheapest way to build an effect is not the most valid way to build an effect. We disagree on the validity of your solution.

 

I have not implied that your disagreement with my point of view is irrational or based on a failure to follow basic math. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

I agree with everything up to "just say no."

 

I was being pithy. I meant "No... it is not part of Hero. If you can create a non-Hero mechanic to emulate this... go for it... but Hero itself says "NO" to magic missiles, homing missiles (missiles in general, really), invulnerabilty, etc."

 

 

Even if there is some "Bolt On" mechanic that somehow plays nice with Hero for these things... I highly doubt it would be "built from existing mechanics" as much as "an entirely new mechanic that is Hero-ish..." Even then, I doubt it is a Mechanic as much as a Game Rule... something that really only works within the established play experience of that game... not something universally applicable.

 

If that is the case, you've essentially just "written down your hand waving" rather than really built anything new. If a build is so hyper-contextual as to really only work/make sense in a very limited play environment then I'd say that is still just hand waving... you just documented it. There needs to be some portability/multi-application to a build for it to be a House Rule or new mechanic.

 

IMO of course.

[tesuji]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

net hiccup just cost me a long detailed post so you get the highlioghts...

If you do the math on Autofire with a 60 active point power vs Rapid Fire + Rapid Attack + Two Weapon Fighting + Skill levels with Rapid Fire, and you will find that the skill based approach is generally cheaper

Assume base chance to hit is 11-.

 

+1/4 autofire naked advantage on 60 ap attack power for three shots is 15 ap. Apply concentration for 1/2 DCV and that drops to 12 cp.

 

Buy rapid fire for 5 cp and then buy +4 OCV for that attack at 8 cp giving you 13 cp. total.

 

three shot burst with autofire average 1.15 hits while the rapid fire averages 1.25 hits. the distributions between miss, 1 hit, 2 hit and 3 hits vary since you have on e die roll vs one-three but the expected yeidl is very close... and for very similar cost.

. Do the math on A0E1HA vs +5 skill levels (the average advantage in CV gained by AoE1HA) and you'll find that the skill level approach is far cheaper.

Which might be a clue that buying AREA OF EFFECT to get a SINGLE TARGET ATTACLK was a less valid approach. IMX the more convoluted a build is is NOT a sign of it being more valid. Validity comes from the comparison of cost vs effectiveness and across a fairly broad and common set of abilities.

 

Sometimes, in some settings, the cheapest way to build an effect is not the most valid way to build an effect. We disagree on the validity of your solution.

obviously.

 

but that is where we diverge greatly in approach.

 

Homing is at its core a better chance of hitting with some flavor added on. you get multiple rolls to strike the target so your initial miss doesn't mean you are done... you might still hit.

 

Now, in the context of "a standard hero supers game" (was that your scope?) what determines for the vast majority of the characters (hey lets look at the published ones) the "odds of hitting" outside of the scenario circumstances?

 

The answer there is the DEX and the SKILL LEVELS of the opponents. Thse are BOUGHT... so they COST OF DEX and the COST OF SKILL LEVELS plays the major role in setting "what are my chances of hitting?"

 

So, when i am asked "how should i value IMPROVING MY CHANCE OF HITTING"

then i (naturally) go to the same COSTS that were used to determine the base values for "my chance of hitting"... the cost of dex and the cost of skill levels.

 

I don't decide "the cost of dex and the cost of skill levels should play nor role in determining the value of "improving my chances to hit""

 

if those two costs were relevent enough to set the "i have a 62.5% chance of making this shot" then it seems painfully obvious to me that those same values should play just as large a role in determining "how much should i pay to raise that 62.5% to 86% (SFX:homing)?"

 

Deciding to dismiss their value for comparisons this late thru the cost calculation is irrational to me. i cannot fathom the "why" of it or see the merit in the approach.

 

Its like deciding to build a brick house and charging me for the east west and north walls based on "the market price of bricks" but then deciding the remaining wall should be charged based on something else deliberately and specifically excluding the price of bricks.

 

I have not implied that your disagreement with my point of view is irrational or based on a failure to follow basic math. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

 

if you don't want people to get the idea that you are basing your decisions on "feelings" or the notion upsets you, consider not ending posts saying "it feels like a bad call".

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

if you don't want people to get the idea that you are basing your decisions on "feelings" or the notion upsets you, consider not ending posts saying "it feels like a bad call".

 

Speaking as a moderator, your tone is inflammatory. Keep things civil.

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Which might be a clue that buying AREA OF EFFECT to get a SINGLE TARGET ATTACLK was a less valid approach. IMX the more convoluted a build is is NOT a sign of it being more valid. Validity comes from the comparison of cost vs effectiveness and across a fairly broad and common set of abilities.

 

Or from another point of view, it indicates that the value of an attack almost guaranteed to hit correlates with the active point value of that attack in a standard Champions campaign, and should be priced accordingly.

[tesuji]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

Speaking as a moderator' date=' your tone is inflammatory. Keep things civil.[/quote']

 

discretion...valor... etc...

leaving

enjoy your games.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

---poking head up like a prairie dog as the dust settles and Odd Hat and Tesuji return to their respective corners---

 

So... the question on the Homing Missile really should not be "How do I Sim this effect?" It should be, "What is the end result in Hero terms of the effect of a homing missile?"

 

To some the end result is really "Increased chance to hit, maybe taking extra time." In that case... do we need a build or is it SFX for maneuvers that already exist. I mean, we have +1 OCV and +2 vs range for Brace and Set. You could rule that a Homing Missile is auto-using this maneuver and translate it as "Missile fires but won't have a chance to hit until the phase later with Brace and Set bonuses calc'd at that time."

 

There you go... not perfect, but a simple interpretation of Homing Missile by interpreting from end result... not from trying to Sim a concept. This is one point where we need to remember "reason from effect."

 

Hero can get quite convoluted and kludgy when we try to Sim concept, instead of reason from effect. (I think this can happen because reason-from-effect can make a lot of VERY different SFX look very plain and unsexy on the sheet. As a GM, I love the fact that a simple power can be described a hundred ways for the players... but players want their SHEET to reflect high differentiation from another sheet. Again, part of Hero's internal conflict (cake and eat it).

[OddHat]

Re: Some Thoughts On Rules

 

So... the question on the Homing Missile really should not be "How do I Sim this effect?" It should be, "What is the end result in Hero terms of the effect of a homing missile?"

 

To some the end result is really "Increased chance to hit, maybe taking extra time." In that case... do we need a build or is it SFX for maneuvers that already exist. I mean, we have +1 OCV and +2 vs range for Brace and Set. You could rule that a Homing Missile is auto-using this maneuver and translate it as "Missile fires but won't have a chance to hit until the phase later with Brace and Set bonuses calc'd at that time."

 

I'd say the one of the most valuable effects of Homing is that it potentially keeps the target running, dodging and diving for cover for several phases, burning his actions evading an attack rather than acting himself (unless he has a DCV or defenses high enough not to worry about it). From a tactical POV, that can be as or more useful than just landing a shot. Brace and set won't do that. That's part of the reason, if the GM wants to incorporate the Homing effect, to either make it its own advantage or go the summon route.