KA Vs Energy Blast

[Zanslev]

I was playing with EB's and KA's one day, when I realized that I don't see the point to an energy blast at all. Point for point, Killing attacks seem to do more body than an equal number of active points of Energy blast, espesially when you figure in the fact that Killing attacks ignore unresistant defenses.

 

So what's the point to buying EB's?

[Mike W]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I was playing with EB's and KA's one day, when I realized that I don't see the point to an energy blast at all. Point for point, Killing attacks seem to do more body than an equal number of active points of Energy blast, espesially when you figure in the fact that Killing attacks ignore unresistant defenses.

 

So what's the point to buying EB's?

 

EBs are far less lethal. EBs almost never do BODY to anyone who belongs on the field(normals would take BODY but that's a different story). Anyone with decent police issue BODY armor or any super is generally not going to take BODY from an EB. But since Killing Attacks ignore non-resistant defenses for the BODY(all DEF counts toward reducing STUN if ANY DEF is resistant), you can kill someone in short order since a lot of people don't have resistant DEF(or at least don't have enough to totally stop the BODY damage). As heroes, you're generally not supposed to be trying to kill people.

 

Also, Killing Attacks, if you're using the STUN multiplier, tend to do wildly different amounts of damage each time they are rolled. EBs are more consistent. Even if you aren't rolling for the STUN multiplier, Killing Attacks still have a lot more variation in how much damage they do.

 

Finally, there is the matter of special effect. Sometimes, energy is potentially lethal - a lightning bolt for instance. But other times, it is not(a shock from an electric security fence like you use to keep dogs in the yard). Fido doesn't have resistant DEF, so you have to make the electric fence an EB(unless you really WANT to be rolling every time he crosses the barrier to see which of his BODY parts is no longer functioning properly.)

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I was playing with EB's and KA's one day, when I realized that I don't see the point to an energy blast at all. Point for point, Killing attacks seem to do more body than an equal number of active points of Energy blast, espesially when you figure in the fact that Killing attacks ignore unresistant defenses.

 

So what's the point to buying EB's?

 

Well the point of killing attacks is to do more body. That is why it is called a killing attack.

 

EBs are to represent non lethal energy. There are numerous situations (and entire genres) that knocking out the opponent is preferable to killing them - thus the EB.

 

The stun lotto was already mentioned. EBs are generally more consistent.

[Reality Czech]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

To take from the same logic that caused the U.S. Military to go with the M-16 rifle (which is actually a low-lethality rifle):

 

Killing an opponent takes out one enemy; wounding an opponent takes out three... One wounded, one to help him, and one to go for help.

I won't say this is always valid reasoning, but it's a decent concept often enough that it's worth considering.

[Mister E]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

KA's do less Knockback.

[MitchellS]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

So what's the point to buying EB's?

It depends on the genre you're playing. Some genres, like four-color superheroes, frown on killing the opponents and so the energy blast is needed to offset the body count [Captain America doesn't chop the heads off of each person he throws his shield at]. Other genres, like fantasy, are almost entirely based on killing your opponent and so there's not much reason to take non-killing attacks. But even in "killing" genres there's going to be times when you want to takeout someone at range without killing them. Energy blast allows you to have things like the Star Trek phaser with its various damage settings [nnd for stun, eb for hard hit, killing attack for strong hit, and nnd killing attack for disintegration].

[Zanslev]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

what brought this on, is I was playing with aparticular demon that liked to spit fireballs around (funny story where one forgot to open it's mouth before spitting said fireball, but I digress). A problem arose when I realised this nice sized fireball was being easily repulsed by an armored vest. What would be the best way to simulate a fireball that effectively causes its target to burst into flame? This could cause an interesting turn of events to all those players who feel relatively safe behind their kevlar... and those who don't.

[BNakagawa]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Making somebody suffer the effects of a burn is fairly easy. You just need to avoid their defenses.

 

Penetrating helps. Armor piercing might work. Together of course, they're brutal.

 

NND does body is a surefire way of getting people's attention.

 

Setting somebody on fire so they stay on fire is a good use for uncontrolled continuous.

 

It's expensive, though.

[Dust Raven]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

what brought this on' date=' is I was playing with aparticular demon that liked to spit fireballs around (funny story where one forgot to open it's mouth before spitting said fireball, but I digress). A problem arose when I realised this nice sized fireball was being easily repulsed by an armored vest. What would be the best way to simulate a fireball that effectively causes its target to burst into flame? This could cause an interesting turn of events to all those players who feel relatively safe behind their kevlar... and those who don't.[/quote']

Make it AoE. Sectional Armor doesn't protect against (or protect as much against) attacks that do general damage or are AoE.

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I note that most of these answers fall under the category "friends don't let friends kill people" idea - that you use an EB instead of RKA so that you won't kill them.

 

I have a few problems with that:

• It's using roleplaying considerations to balance mechanics. I've never really been convinced that was a good idea. It's sometimes unavoidable, but ideally mechanics should balance mechanically - that's the Holy Grail - 5 points of this should be mechanically equivalent (not equal - equivalent) to 5 points of that.
  
• In my experience most 12d6 Energy Blasts aren't STUN Only (gotta love Knockback). A 12d6 EB is quite capable of killing a normal. So there's a disconnect here somewhere.
  
• It hasn't generally been my experience that most Killing Attacks do BODY very often against super level defences (I freely confess to ignorance regarding non-superheroic Hero - I've never really put it to the test). Generally if you want to actually hurt your superhero opponent you buy Penetrating (or at least Armour Piercing) on your KA. So the argument that KAs are used to do BODY is a little bit suspect as well - one of the main uses for a KA is to try and roll a 6 for the STUN multiplier (which is why guys with Uzis are occasionally dangerous even to superheroes, and VIPER thugs with 8d6 EB blasters rarely are).

There are several other active threads discussing whether or not Killing Attacks "work".

[Tech]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Perhaps I misunderstand the basis of your question but this seems to be a statement of going for maximum efficiency; a Killing Attack over Energy Blast in that a KA can do more Stun than an EB (with a good Stun Multiplier roll) with the same number of points: 30 pts gives 6d6 EB (max 36 Stun and 12 body) or 2d6 KA (12 Body and 60 Stun).

 

I'm trying to understand your reasoning on why you'd prefer a Killing Attack over an Energy Blast. As stated numerous times on these boards, Killing Attacks are designed to kill. Energy Blasts are not. Oh, I'm not saying that EB aren't capable of killing with enough points but EB can be made Stun Only (as many players in the campaign do). A Killing Attack is designed to ignore normal PD or ED whereas EB must subtract it.

 

You mention:

*It's using roleplaying considerations to balance mechanics. I've never really been convinced that was a good idea. It's sometimes unavoidable, but ideally mechanics should balance mechanically - that's the Holy Grail - 5 points of this should be mechanically equivalent (not equal - equivalent) to 5 points of that.

*In my experience most 12d6 Energy Blasts aren't STUN Only (gotta love Knockback). A 12d6 EB is quite capable of killing a normal. So there's a disconnect here somewhere.

*It hasn't generally been my experience that most Killing Attacks do BODY very often against super level defences (I freely confess to ignorance regarding non-superheroic Hero - I've never really put it to the test). Generally if you want to actually hurt your superhero opponent you buy Penetrating (or at least Armour Piercing) on your KA. So the argument that KAs are used to do BODY is a little bit suspect as well - one of the main uses for a KA is to try and roll a 6 for the STUN multiplier (which is why guys with Uzis are occasionally dangerous even to superheroes, and VIPER thugs with 8d6 EB blasters rarely are).

 

I'll use a, b and c to address the above:

a) the Hero Games system isn't perfect. I agree that 5 pts should be mechanically equal to 5 pts elsewhere but what game system is perfect?

 

In my experience, most heroes do not use 12d6 against normals or even agents. They hold back, pull punches, use NND or something else, many players have heroes that use Stun Only attacks. Also, many players do not use full power even against supervillains unless it's known they can take that much power. So, we have different experiences here. I'm sure others have as well. Technically, 12d6 EB will only bring a normal to 0 Body, not kill them assuming the normal has 10 Body.

 

c) Again, we have different experiences. I and others on this board do use 8d6 EB for our agents. Me and my friends have noticed a slight but gradual power escalation in Hero Games villains (ex. CKC) that have Penetrating or AP on their KA, just to make sure the heroes get hurt or anyone else. As GM for over 20 some odd years, I've noticed that when villains start to get nastier, such as a higher KA, KA that become AP or whatnot, the players start buying Damage Resistance and Hardened Defenses, which in turn makes it harder for the GM to hurt them so he makes the attacks more lethal and the players respond, etc etc. The problem starts with a misunderstanding between the GM and players, not the rulebook. If the players anticipate a friendly heroic campaign where heroes win but instead encounter a GM created campaign of violence and murder, something's going to break real fast. In the same way, if the GM suddenly changes things, even subtlely, to make things more dangerous for the players, the players will notice and respond in kind to protect their characters. When I hear of campaigns where everyone has Damage Resistance and possibly Hardened Defenses just to survive a GM's encounters reminiscent that of a AD&D killer DM. Obviously, you've run into harsh GM's but not all campaigns are like the ones you've mentioned.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I'm trying to understand your reasoning on why you'd prefer a Killing Attack over an Energy Blast. As stated numerous times on these boards' date=' Killing Attacks are designed to [i']kill[/i]. Energy Blasts are not. Oh, I'm not saying that EB aren't capable of killing with enough points but EB can be made Stun Only (as many players in the campaign do). A Killing Attack is designed to ignore normal PD or ED whereas EB must subtract it.

 

We claim that a KA is designed to kill. In your actual games (not in theoretical gaming parlance), how often do killing attacks kill during combat?

 

In the typical Supers game, we see 12d6 EB's and 4d6 KA's. In my experience, most Supers buy enough rDEF that neither the EB nor the KA routinely does BOD damage. Both attacks eventually KO their opponent. Neither kills.

 

In games with lower average defenses, such as fantasy, the KA becomes somewhat more effective at inflicting BOD damage. But here again, I see far more KO's than kills. The reduced rDEF tends to be offset by increased Healing abilities.

 

I see the game description saying "killing attacks are designed to kill", but I don't see evidence of that design being successful in actual game play. In actual game play, the more common result is that the Stun Lotto enhances the possibility of inflicting significant Stun on an opponent with higher than average defenses.

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Perhaps I misunderstand the basis of your question but this seems to be a statement of going for maximum efficiency; a Killing Attack over Energy Blast in that a KA can do more Stun than an EB (with a good Stun Multiplier roll) with the same number of points: 30 pts gives 6d6 EB (max 36 Stun and 12 body) or 2d6 KA (12 Body and 60 Stun).

I would say that is a fair summary of my position, yes - with the understanding that I'm not saying, "My character r0xx0rs because he has an RKA and yours is teh suk because he only has an EB"; more correctly, I'm saying that two characters that spend the same number of points on an attack power that does damage with the same range and advantages should get equivalent bang for their buck. EBs are supposed to do more STUN than KAs - they're not supposed to be strictly inferior (IMHO, before anyone jumps down my throat - on another thread it was revealed to me that some players do think that the fact that KAs are more point efficient than EBs is either of no interest to them or actually a feature. I have no real response to that other than to politely disagree). Because of the STUN Lotto KAs are more efficient at delivering STUN and BODY, which leaves EBs with only one advantage (a few extra inches of Knockback, on average, which tends to be inconsequential).

 

A Killing Attack is designed to ignore normal PD or ED whereas EB must subtract it.

For BODY, yes.

 

Let me be plain: the fact that KAs do more BODY than an EB is absolutely fine with me. "Working as intended". No problem. Nothing to see here.

 

It's the fact that they also do more STUN that I think is "broken".

 

a) the Hero Games system isn't perfect. I agree that 5 pts should be mechanically equal to 5 pts elsewhere but what game system is perfect?

No system is perfect. But we don't have to ignore flaws; we can fix them. Perfection may be unattainable. In the end we may conclude that the current system, while flawed, is still better than any proposed alternative (some of the other threads have bounced around this conclusion). It doesn't hurt to discuss improvements, though - everyone has their pet replacement (and while I prefer mine, it's nice to read other people's).

 

In my experience, most heroes do not use 12d6 against normals or even agents. They hold back, pull punches, use NND or something else, many players have heroes that use Stun Only attacks. Also, many players do not use full power even against supervillains unless it's known they can take that much power. So, we have different experiences here. I'm sure others have as well. Technically, 12d6 EB will only bring a normal to 0 Body, not kill them assuming the normal has 10 Body.

A couple of points here:

• Heroes not killing the opposition is genre specific. You're right that it is unusual in four-colour Champions (my favourite genre, BTW); Dark Champions often kill the bad guys. Ninja Heroes do as well; most Fantasy Heroes too. So saying that "KAs are better than EBs, sure, but that's OK - PCs won't be using them" isn't necessarily true.
  
• Villains pay points for things as well. And while a villain doesn't have to care about the point cost, typically they do get written up to some degree (if only so that we can share them with the world - or is it just me that's that vain? ). Certainly not all four colour supervillains are murderers - but some certainly are. Why should the murderous thugs get a point advantage over their more civilised compatriots?
  
• Some effects, even for four colour heroes, are better modelled with Killing Attacks. This is campaign and GM dependent, but some examples from me: lasers (if a light based hero wants a non-lethal ranged attack, I usually suggest the nonsense name "photonic blast" rather than laser), fire (again, I suggest "heat wave" for the nonlethal equivalent), many poisons. Perfectly reasonable players will occasionally come up with something that is most logically modelled with a Killing Attack, so you can't always keep them out of the player's grubby little mitts.

c) Again, we have different experiences. I and others on this board do use 8d6 EB for our agents.

I didn't actually say I didn't use 8d6 EB for agents. What I said was that your 4-colour heroes (with 20-30 DEF) don't really fear VIPER agent energy blasts - they just don't hurt very much, and the large number of dice means that extreme results are very unusual. On the other hand a group of thugs with Uzis, despite the fact that they're built on less points than a typical VIPER agent (I assume - I don't have any 5th edition stuff that has any VIPER writeups, but that was certainly the case in 4th edition), are much more likely to get lucky. A 2 1/2d6 RKA has a decent chance of doing 40 or more STUN thanks to the "Lotto" mechanic. In essence: you're bulletproof, so you don't care about taking BODY (someone with 15 rPD is completely immune to taking BODY from that RKA - and I've seen martial artists in Champions that had that much), but you're somewhat concerned about taking STUN even though the EB is "supposed" to be more efficient at delivering that.

 

(snip observations about escalating lethality)

 

Understand my objections are at a mostly theoretical level. I am virtually always the GM (at least for Hero; I despise having to run D&D games, though I will reluctantly play them), and I'm certainly not scared of Killing Attacks. Indeed, as Hugh points out, it's not about their lethality at all. It's absolutely not the BODY damage that concerns me - barring such things as Penetrating or at least Armour Piercing attacks, your average superhero doesn't take BODY any more often from RKAs than he does from Energy Blasts (YMMV, I suppose, but that's my experience).

 

It's all about the STUN. It is my considered opinion that EBs should be better at doing STUN than KAs are. If you calculate the averages this is born out (for instance, 60 active points averages 12 BODY/42 STUN for an EB and 14 BODY/37.333 STUN for an RKA). It's just that the extreme values crop up a lot more often for KAs than they do for EBs, and while that means you get more "bounces" (very low rolls), that doesn't balance the fact that you get more Stuns/KOs (the former is a wasted phase, the latter is often "lights out").

[Tech]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

We claim that a KA is designed to kill. In your actual games (not in theoretical gaming parlance), how often do killing attacks kill during combat?

 

In the typical Supers game, we see 12d6 EB's and 4d6 KA's. In my experience, most Supers buy enough rDEF that neither the EB nor the KA routinely does BOD damage. Both attacks eventually KO their opponent. Neither kills.

 

In games with lower average defenses, such as fantasy, the KA becomes somewhat more effective at inflicting BOD damage. But here again, I see far more KO's than kills. The reduced rDEF tends to be offset by increased Healing abilities.

 

I see the game description saying "killing attacks are designed to kill", but I don't see evidence of that design being successful in actual game play. In actual game play, the more common result is that the Stun Lotto enhances the possibility of inflicting significant Stun on an opponent with higher than average defenses.

 

Regardless of how often a Killing Attack kills doesn't negate that Killing Attacks are designed to kill. If everyone has their character buy Damage Resistance, it certainly does make any killing of characters very difficult much less hurting them but a KA used against a normal or agent still does killing damage and can kill if they aren't wearing some body armor. A plastic cup is designed to hold a liquid even if due to a crack, it can't hold liquids anymore.

 

Still, to answer your question Hugh, the campaign I'm set in avoids killing in it's setting so I see very little.. come to think of it, it's been years but that's the campaign setting. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the characters have some form of resistant defense so that still makes KA in the campaign dangerous, not ignored.

 

A common thread in this, well, thread is people's experience. I prefer to avoid KA for 2 reasons: 1) I just don't like using them generally; yes, my preference and 2) KA do not roll high Stun rolls about 75% or more when I have used them. There was even a period for about a year when I kept rolling 1's or 2's (becoming 1's because of the 1d6-1 Multiplier). I gave up using KA for a looong time.

[Metaphysician]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Um, 2.5d6 RKA is not an Uzi. Thats more like a 7.62mm automatic rifle.

 

And, it seems the fundamental objection is the Stun lotto. My solution:

 

Eliminate it.

 

Set base stun multiplier to x3. Increased/Decreased Stun Multiplier advantages modify it from there. You'll still get more unpredictability than with EBs on average, but your average and maximum Stun come out as the same value.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Regardless of how often a Killing Attack kills doesn't negate that Killing Attacks are designed to kill. If everyone has their character buy Damage Resistance' date=' it certainly does make any killing of characters very difficult much less hurting them but a KA used against a normal or agent still does killing damage and can kill if they aren't wearing some body armor. A plastic cup is designed to hold a liquid even if due to a crack, it can't hold liquids anymore.[/quote']

 

A plastic cup with a hole in it may have been designed to hold liquids, but the design is not effective.

 

A normal or agent will be taken down by a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA. If we're swatting bugs, the EB and KA are also about equal in their effectiveness. There is no advantage to the KA against very inferior opponents, but there's little drawback (other than that moral imperative not to kill).

 

Still' date=' to answer your question Hugh, the campaign I'm set in avoids killing in it's setting so I see very little.. come to think of it, it's been years but that's the campaign setting. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the characters have some form of resistant defense so that still makes KA in the campaign dangerous, not ignored.[/quote']

 

I will suggest that this is not the norm. If resistant defenses were as uncommon as other exotic defenses, I would agree that a killing attack merits an increase in cost over a normal attack. That is not, however, the way that the game has generaly evolved.

 

A common thread in this' date=' well, thread is people's experience. I prefer to avoid KA for 2 reasons: 1) I just don't like using them generally; yes, my preference and 2) KA do [u']not[/u] roll high Stun rolls about 75% or more when I have used them. There was even a period for about a year when I kept rolling 1's or 2's (becoming 1's because of the 1d6-1 Multiplier). I gave up using KA for a looong time.

 

The math bears out that, over time, the KA will inflict more STUN against targets at a defense level of (IIRC) above about 2.0 to 2.5 DEF per attack DC. Oddly (or perhaps intentionally - too bad Steve doesn't answer philosophical questions...), the current recommended ratio of DC's to everage defenses are at about the right level that KA's are marginally less effective at inflicting STUN.

[SuperKlaus]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

And, it seems the fundamental objection is the Stun lotto. My solution:

 

Eliminate it.

 

Set base stun multiplier to x3. Increased/Decreased Stun Multiplier advantages modify it from there. You'll still get more unpredictability than with EBs on average, but your average and maximum Stun come out as the same value.

 

Seconded. I've been thinking about cutting it to x2.5, actually, with "+1 STUNx" morphing into "+.5 STUNx" for the first increase to more closely match the averages. I'm just afraid that the math-uninclined out there will blanch at the thought of a decimal point. I might chop KAs down to merely x2 (leaving the +Multiplier Advantage alone) in that case because I think they're fine with their better BODY rolls and ability to reach a less common defense.

[ghost-angel]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

what brought this on' date=' is I was playing with aparticular demon that liked to spit fireballs around (funny story where one forgot to open it's mouth before spitting said fireball, but I digress). A problem arose when I realised this nice sized fireball was being easily repulsed by an armored vest. What would be the best way to simulate a fireball that effectively causes its target to burst into flame? This could cause an interesting turn of events to all those players who feel relatively safe behind their kevlar... and those who don't.[/quote']

 

Armor Piercing and Penetrating both are your friend in this case.

 

Or controlling the amount of Defenses in the game.

 

Controlling Defenses in a game will do more for the lethality level than tweaking the offensive system.

 

 

As for the whole EB vs KA arguement.

 

Assuming 2PD. no rPD. Average Rolls(ish)

6D6 EB = 6 Body, 21 Stun - Defenses = 4 Body, 19 Stun

2D6 KA = 7 Body, 21(ish) Stun - Defenses = 7 Body, 21(ish) Stun.

 

The KA is clearly more lethal in that situation. Both are about equal in the Gonna Knock You Out factor.

 

Beyond that, I've never had an issue with it. In game play Killing Attack means "I want to kill you" and in properly set up games (meaning Defensive and Offensive levels were set, controlled, and designed to provide a certain level of lethality) have been equally effective mechanically. We also use a flat 3x STUN and have had no problems with that either (yes, there's another arguement about how good that makes KAs...)

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Fixed x3 makes KAs strictly superior to EBs (more BODY, less STUN, even ignoring the resistant defence angle). x2.5 doesn't have that issue.

 

Indeed, a fixed STUN multiple is one of the more frequent patches people seem to apply. Unfortunately multiplying by 2.5 on the fly is a little ugly for a core mechanic - it's not something I personally would struggle with, but it certainly wouldn't reduce Hero's reputation as a math heavy game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Fixed x3 makes KAs strictly superior to EBs (more BODY' date=' less STUN, even ignoring the resistant defence angle). x2.5 doesn't have that issue.[/quote']

 

Average becomes equal to a normal attack, actually. 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD x 3 = 42 Stun, same as a 12d6 EB.

 

I think the best solution I've seen is to reduce KA's to 5 points per d6, which are then rolled as follows:

 

Count the roll on the dice as Stun, but subtract 1 (minimum 1 stun per die).

Count BOD like a normal attack, except a 5 is also 2 BOD

Subtract an extra d6 from the Knockback.

Only rDEF count against the BOD; all defenses offset STUN if you have any rDEF.

 

This minimizes changes to the existing KA results. Average BOD and Knockback are the same. The volatility is largely smoothed out. Average STUN takes a bit of a drop. If you want to smooth that out, maybe just subtract 1 STUN for every 2d6.

[Metaphysician]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Um, no, average roll with x3 fixed is same Stun as for EBs. You do more body against a lesser defense granted, but you also have to worry about killing the target more.

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Yes, as I said, strictly superior. More BODY, same STUN. Why settle for less?

[ghost-angel]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Fixed x3 makes KAs strictly superior to EBs (more BODY, less STUN, even ignoring the resistant defence angle). x2.5 doesn't have that issue.

 

Indeed, a fixed STUN multiple is one of the more frequent patches people seem to apply. Unfortunately multiplying by 2.5 on the fly is a little ugly for a core mechanic - it's not something I personally would struggle with, but it certainly wouldn't reduce Hero's reputation as a math heavy game.

 

In Happy Theoretical Land, you might (BIG MAYBE) be correct.

 

At the table, I have seen No Evidence your statement is even remotely accurate.

[Tech]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

A couple of points here:

• Heroes not killing the opposition is genre specific. You're right that it is unusual in four-colour Champions (my favourite genre, BTW); Dark Champions often kill the bad guys. Ninja Heroes do as well; most Fantasy Heroes too. So saying that "KAs are better than EBs, sure, but that's OK - PCs won't be using them" isn't necessarily true.

I should have said 'characters' not 'heroes', if we're going to be picky here. I've looked thru my posts - don't know where you found me saying "KAs are better than EBs, sure, but that's OK - PCs won't be using them" since I didn't say this.

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I should have said 'characters' not 'heroes'' date=' if we're going to be picky here. I've looked thru my posts - don't know where you found me saying "KAs are better than EBs, sure, but that's OK - PCs won't be using them" since I didn't say this. [/quote']

It looked implied to me; my bad. I interpreted this when you said things like:

 

a) the Hero Games system isn't perfect. I agree that 5 pts should be mechanically equal to 5 pts elsewhere but what game system is perfect?

(implying that you agree KAs are better, but imperfection is tolerable)

 

In my experience, most heroes do not use 12d6 against normals or even agents.

(implying that you were OK with killing potentials because players didn't exploit it).

 

If I have mischaracterised your position here I sincerely apologise.