Multipower imbalance

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I would too' date=' but by 'the rules' that is not the case... the MP does not add up to one big power, but the control cost is part of the AP of the VPP.[/quote']

 

Again...

Huh??

 

Multipowers and VPP's are just frameworks.

 

Active Point caps (which are house rules anyway) only deal with powers (not the frameworks they might be built inside of).

 

Subject to a rules cite to the contrary, I agree with HyperMan. The framework is not a power, so it does not have AP.

[Naanomi]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Subject to a rules cite to the contrary' date=' I agree with HyperMan. The framework is not a power, so it does not have AP.[/quote']

 

I... guess I was wrong. Can't find it in 6e anyways. Just my own personal GM's bias I guess hehe

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Technically' date=' Senses are considered Special Powers and are not allowed within Frameworks of any sort without GM permission.[/quote']

 

Ah; thanks for keeping me straight, H-M. I've been ignoring that one for so long I forgot it existed.

[lascutri]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I accept with information: EC: This was removed in 6E, and the Unified Power (-1/4) Limitation replaced it; the cost break for related Powers is not really worth more.

MP: Fixed slots can be simulated with “Lockout” (-1/2). “Half Positive Effect from Adjustment Powers” (-1/4) might be applied (although this gets proportionally less of an effect the more slots the MP has). Some MPs structures can be replaced with Unified Power (-1/4).

[Rapier]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Hmmm...can't my Utility Belt have:

 

- A compass (Bump of Direction)

- a scanner with a link to the BatComputer for analysis of text (Speed Reading)

- a portable computer programmed with some skill basics (Cramming)

- a link to the BatComputer for linguistics (Universal Translator)

- electronic lockpicks (+3 lockpicking)

 

None of those look at all odd viewed in that light.

 

Those are very good examples. As I stated, I didn't think it would be too difficult to come up with examples.

 

I also believe that this is the exact thing Steve was thinking of. Those powers are all in a utility belt multipower, but how are they hampered to justify the cost savings of having them in an MP?

 

Those are fairly common examples of things I might stuff in my pockets/backpack/utility belt while adventuring, but I'll tell ya that MP STILL looks kind of odd.

 

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that it is often the case that throwing things into an MP 'just because it's probably cheaper' doesn't always hold true. The example you gave above could very well end up being more expensive that simply buying them outright (depending on the builds). The fact that it's likely that all the slots will not have a great number of Limitations in common so the Reserve will be significantly more expensive.

[Utech]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I also believe that this is the exact thing Steve was thinking of. Those powers are all in a utility belt multipower' date=' but how are they hampered to justify the cost savings of having them in an MP?[/quote']

 

That's another reason why I don't think they belong in a Multipower. You want them? Buy them. Stick them all under a heading called "Utility Belt" if you want to keep them organized, but you don't get to put them into a Multipower.

 

And, of course, if you're going to ignore the "lockout" nature of Powers in a Multipower whenever that's inconvenient (as in the silly Aquaman/Batman dialogue I wrote earlier), then you shouldn't have put the Powers in a Multipower to begin with. If your only justification for putting all those Powers into a Multipower is cost savings, you need to explain to your GM that you need more points to build your character correctly -- not shoehorn them into a Multipower.

[IKerensky]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

A guy with a 12d6 eb and a 4d6 rka has two equally effective powers and if they are in a mp then i can choose which flavor i want. but i cannot combine them into one massive attack. that costs just 20% more than having only one attack. thats about right.

 

if i made you pay full price then you could combine them together at once for a masive attack or you could pay the same price for one 24 dice attack.

 

Err, you CANT use 2 attack power at the same time, even while paying full price for them... They are each a separate action, aren't they ?

 

If not I could just fire every gun I have on me, or use several time the same power in the same action ?

 

I think that MP is perhaps a bit weird to justify... It is a nice way to cheapen powers but all the justification sound a bit hollow... or at very last, very borderline between designing for effect and designing for concept/roleplay...

 

weird...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Err, you CANT use 2 attack power at the same time, even while paying full price for them... They are each a separate action, aren't they ?

 

 

 

From 5er. page 358:

 

Multiple-Power Attacks

A character may use as many Attack Powers (or other attacks) in a Phase as he wishes, provided he meets several restrictions.

 

First, he must be able to pay the END for all of the powers.

 

Second, he can only make one Attack Roll. It must be the same type of Attack Roll; a character can’t use a power requiring a DEX-based Attack Roll together with one requiring an ECV Attack Roll, except with the GM’s permission. A character could use an area affecting attack (which works against DCV 3) and a non-area-aff ecting one (which works against the target’s DCV) as part of a multiple-power attack, but he must make the Attack Roll against the target’s DCV for the non-area-affecting attack (in other words, not against the DCV 3 for the area-aff ecting attack). The attacks can affect different defenses (such as an Energy Blast and an RKA, or a Drain and a Flash).

 

Third, he must use all of the Attack Powers or attacks on the same target. Use of multiple powers in this fashion is considered a single Attack Action.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Err' date=' you CANT use 2 attack power at the same time, even while paying full price for them... They are each a separate action, aren't they ? [/quote']

 

Adding to HM's quote, it is also claimed that this was the implicit rule prior to 5e, which is why the Linked limitation did not also grant an advantage (using two attacks at once), and was intended by the original designers. Assuming that is correct, 5e simply made this rule explicit.

[archermoo]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Adding to HM's quote' date=' it is also claimed that this was the implicit rule prior to 5e, which is why the Linked limitation did not also grant an advantage (using two attacks at once), and was intended by the original designers. Assuming that is correct, 5e simply made this rule explicit.[/quote']

 

Made it explicit and put more limitations on it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Made it explicit and put more limitations on it.

 

I think it put more limitations on it, but without an explicit source for the old rule, I'm not sure what limitations it imposed. At a minimum, I expect the old rule would not have been "can't use two powers from the same framework, so I expect 5e limited it.

[tesuji]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Err, you CANT use 2 attack power at the same time, even while paying full price for them... They are each a separate action, aren't they ?

 

If not I could just fire every gun I have on me, or use several time the same power in the same action ?

 

I think that MP is perhaps a bit weird to justify... It is a nice way to cheapen powers but all the justification sound a bit hollow... or at very last, very borderline between designing for effect and designing for concept/roleplay...

 

weird...

 

in 6e its called a combined attack. In 5e it was called multi-power attack.

 

I never found mp hard to justify for the effects it seemed to fit.

 

For example, a force fields character might be able to use his as a force wall or a force field or a force spear or a force disk or as a force bubble forming inside your brain and expanding until your head explodes... but not do all of these at once... so a multipower of various effects seems apropos.

 

A utility belt seems a lot less apropos since the justification for the "cannot use at same time" especially if the mp is set up to only allow one at a time, seems very thin.

 

Now i might buy a multipower with a lim for "load up the slots at the base" where the pool represents the stuff you put in the belt but you pick which slots are "on" when you leave your base.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

1. Non combat powers in a MP

 

What non-combat powers? Shapeshift, maybe, is a (largely) non-combat power, EDM and megascaled movement, but that is about it. Everything else is mainly a combat power. Hero's is balanced on the assumption of usefulness in combat, in my estimation.

 

2. Draining a MP

 

I can not tell you how much I loathe the rules for draining a MP. Why? WHY? You should be able to drain the pool direct, which drains the slots proportionately. End of.

 

3. Utility Sodding Belts

 

Can you take your torch out of your utility belt and give it to your SuperGregorio to shine on the injured SuperAlphonse while you take the medipack out of another pouch and sort out SuperAlphonse's wounds? Then it isn't a multipower, is it? And if you can't, because the rules don't let you, you're not actually building from concept: what happens? Do all the other little pouches lock when you open one? You can have a Utility Belt if all the items derive power from a battery in the buckle, and you can only plug one in at a time. Otherwise, not so much. I KNOW this is in direct contravention of the rules. The rules are wrong.

 

4. Linked SFX

 

There has to be a reason why you're getting a cost break. There has to be a reason why there is a framework. There has to be some reason why everything in the MP is in the MP together: a base common sfx. For instance, you could have a Blast, a Heal and a Flight slot, and they could all be magic spells, so even though one has Fire and one has Healing Light and one has Angel Wings as sfx, they all have a base common sfx of 'magic'. Again I know this is not how it works in the rules: they are wrong ont his too.

 

5. "...but I can't MPA my Blast and RKA"

 

Stop whining. Would you have spent 60 points on Blast AND 60 points on RKA just so you could? Not unless your name is Dr Destroyer you wouldn't so you're not actually losing anything are you? Stop whining.

 

6. I love MPs

 

Used right they are great. Six times of ammo in your LawGiver? Cool. Six different guns? Sod off.

 

7. You're stifling my creativity!

 

Oh, please! I'm giving your creativity the opportunity to grow.

 

Buy a VPP. Change only back at the lab. Put it in a focus. Buy twice as many for +5 points. Bingo. No new rules, quite possibly cheaper than a MP if you have variable slots or lots of slots...but this is not about cost, it is about consistent application of the rules. The system CAN do what you want it to without twisting MP into shapes it was never originally meant to be, or, if it WAS, never should have been.

 

Built with HD:

 

Utility Belt:

 

Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, (38 Active Points); IIF (-1/4), Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (Can only be changed between scenes; -1/4) 38 active points, 35 real

 

x8 items (+15 points)

 

Total 50 points

 

For that you get 8 gadgets of up to 30 active points each that are, actually, independent of each other, so you can use your torch and your medipack simultaneously, or shoot your pistol as you glide down on a parachute, or whatever.

 

And you can change the damn slots between scenes if you get back to the StoatCave, so you can take whatever equipment you think is needed. And you can MPA with your flamethrower and your pencil laser, and six other weapons too if you have extra limbs.

 

As a MP it would cost 24 point pool + 16 points for the 8 fixed slots, or 40 points (56 points if you used variable slots), but it would simply be WRONG.

 

I KNOW this can be horribly abused: so what? As the GM it is your job to sort out the genuine, interesting builds that enhance the game for everyone from the megamunchkin homewreckers. Grow some.

 

Sean 'Mr Angry' Waters

[Shiva13]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

My original point in posting this thread was as a direct question to Steve Long. To address what I believe is a very basic mathematical imbalance inherent to the structure of a Multipower.

 

But after reading some of the responses here, I'm beginning to think that the whole justifacation for the Multipower existing at all is flawed.

 

Regardless of how Adjustment powers effect Power Frameworks, a Multipower does not provide significant enough actual limits on actual use of the powers to justify it's cost. And many of the posters in this thread have stated that a Multipower really isn't a limitation at all. So that makes the entire existance of the Multipower itself contrary to the basic design of the Hero System.

 

To gain a cooresponding cost break, a power must be adiquately limited. If the power is not significantly limited in its actual function, said power gains no cost break.

 

So I'm stating flat out that: The Multipower should not exist because it does not limit significantly enough to justify the benefits it grants.

 

Now the Variable Power Pool. Basically the VPP is a pool of points with a +1/2 Power Advantage on it to grant the pool its variable nature. That extra Control Cost can be adjusted with further Advantages or Limitations to broaden or further restrict how that Pool can be used. Simple and straightforward. The math on it is sound. It's fair and balanced.

 

So its my opinion that the Variable Power Pool should be the only Power Framework to exist.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Utility Belt:

 

Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, (38 Active Points); IIF (-1/4), Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (Can only be changed between scenes; -1/4) 38 active points, 35 real

 

x8 items (+15 points)

 

Total 50 points

 

For that you get 8 gadgets of up to 30 active points each that are, actually, independent of each other, so you can use your torch and your medipack simultaneously, or shoot your pistol as you glide down on a parachute, or whatever.

 

And you can change the damn slots between scenes if you get back to the StoatCave, so you can take whatever equipment you think is needed. And you can MPA with your flamethrower and your pencil laser, and six other weapons too if you have extra limbs.

 

 

This violates another rule though.

From 5er, page 456:

 

If a character uses the 5-point doubling rule to buy multiple weapons or gadgets, each of them has to be identical. However, if he uses this rule (or a corresponding rule) to buy extra Computers, Followers, Vehicles, or Bases, the various items can differ — they just all have to be built on that same point total or less. For example, a character could buy four 200-point Vehicles, defi ning them as a car, a motorcycle, a boat, and a mini-copter.

 

IMO, the rule is intended to allow a character like Batman to have a backup Utility Belt in the Batcave or Batmobile. Even if we ignore that issue your method still doesn't explicitly include UBO so the basic 'mechanics' issue that Bat's can't give his bat-torch to a teammate is still there.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

This violates another rule though.

From 5er, page 456:

 

 

 

IMO, the rule is intended to allow a character like Batman to have a backup Utility Belt in the Batcave or Batmobile. Even if we ignore that issue your method still doesn't explicitly include UBO so the basic 'mechanics' issue that Bat's can't give his bat-torch to a teammate is still there.

 

 

I built them as a VPPx8, so the actual builds are all identical even if they are all going to be used in different ways, and the points differently distributed and, of course, they will all look different. I accept that you could interpret this as having to all be the same point distribution: you could have 8 grenades with this build but not a grenade, a pistol, a torch etc etc.

 

I'd persoanlly allow it, subject to it not being abused: IMO 6 identical pistols are probably more abusable than 6 different 'utility' items. Still, valid objection and, subject to clarification from on high, one for the conscience of each GM.

 

As to UBO...well...if they are univeral focus then anyone can use them. I don't particularly LIKE that part of focus: it is a substantial advantage IMO and limitations should not be giving advantages, but it is definitely legal to hand a universal focus to someone else, and for them to use it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

....

 

So its my opinion that the Variable Power Pool should be the only Power Framework to exist.

 

So take a look at the following rules legal VPP version of Batman's Utility Belt:

 

 

45 The Utility Belt: Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2), No Skill Roll Required (+1) (67 Active Points); Limited Class Of Powers Available Gadgets (-1/2); all slots Restrainable (-1/2), OIF (-1/2)

[Notes: This is just a small sampling of items carried. The Real Cost only increases to 48 points if you want to make it 'Cosmic' (No Skill Roll Required & Powers Can Be changed As A 0 Phase Action)]

0 1) Batarangs: Energy Blast 6d6, 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (+0) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15 - END=[6 rc]

0 2) Exploding Batarangs: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, 16 Charges (+0), Penetrating (+1/2), Explosion (+1/2) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15 - END=[16]

0 3) Tracking Device: Detect A Class Of Things 13- (Unusual Group), Increased Arc of Perception, Range, Tracking, Variable Advantage (+1/4 Advantages; +1/2) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15 - END=0

0 4) Gas Bombs: Energy Blast 3d6, 16 Charges (+0), No Normal Defense (Standard; +1) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15 - END=[16]

0 5) Flash Pellets: Sight Group Flash 4d6, 16 Charges (+0), Explosion (+1/2) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15 - END=[16]

0 6) Energy Knuckles: Hand-To-Hand Attack +4d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2) Real Cost: 12 - END=0

0 7) Batlines: Swinging 30", 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (+0) (30 Active Points); OAF (-1) Real Cost: 12 - END=[6 rc]

0 8) Bat Vehicle Remote: Summon 60-point Bat Vehicles, 8 Recoverable Charges (+0), Expanded Class of Beings Very Limited Group (Bat Vehicles: Boat, Car and Jet; +1/4), Invisible to Sight Group, Source Only (+1/4), Slavishly Devoted (+1) (30 Active Points); Arrives Under Own Power (-1/2) Real Cost: 12 - END=[8 rc]

 

In my earlier VPP example I went with the (-1/2) value with the description of "gadgets". To get to that level of value I believe that one of the assumptions I made with this was some sort of GM & Player agreed upon upper limit (10-12) to the number of gadgets carried. Otherwise "gadgets" as a Limited Class is really only worth (-1/4).

 

So put me down in the camp for making Limited # Gadgets Carried a (-1/4) as well.

 

And here is a very comprehensive list of possible Utility Belt gadgets:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1635255&postcount=9

 

Now take away the ability to change out those 'dozen or so' slots at the Batcave and you end up with a Multipower which rightfully should cost less than the VPP version.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

My original point in posting this thread was as a direct question to Steve Long. To address what I believe is a very basic mathematical imbalance inherent to the structure of a Multipower.

 

But after reading some of the responses here, I'm beginning to think that the whole justifacation for the Multipower existing at all is flawed.

 

Regardless of how Adjustment powers effect Power Frameworks, a Multipower does not provide significant enough actual limits on actual use of the powers to justify it's cost. And many of the posters in this thread have stated that a Multipower really isn't a limitation at all. So that makes the entire existance of the Multipower itself contrary to the basic design of the Hero System.

 

To gain a cooresponding cost break, a power must be adiquately limited. If the power is not significantly limited in its actual function, said power gains no cost break.

 

So I'm stating flat out that: The Multipower should not exist because it does not limit significantly enough to justify the benefits it grants.

 

Now the Variable Power Pool. Basically the VPP is a pool of points with a +1/2 Power Advantage on it to grant the pool its variable nature. That extra Control Cost can be adjusted with further Advantages or Limitations to broaden or further restrict how that Pool can be used. Simple and straightforward. The math on it is sound. It's fair and balanced.

 

So its my opinion that the Variable Power Pool should be the only Power Framework to exist.

 

 

I like a firmly stated argument:)

 

I think a lot of MPs are questionable but, for instance, a laser with a tunable focus (AP setting, normal RKA setting, AOE setting) does not seem inappropriate to me: as a MP it would cost X + 3x(X/10): 78 points if X is 60.

 

As a VPP it would cost 60 base points PLUS a 30 point control cost, instant reliable change (+2) for 90 points, then 'limited group of powers; 1/2, perhaps -1, so somewhere between 105 and 120 points: cheaper to buy a RKA and naked power advantages with lockout. That is messy though.

 

So I think MP does have clear uses and advantages...although, for the reasons above, I don't like all teh current MP rules. For the right concept realisation though, it is beautifulyl balanced.

 

Used to use MP for movement, quite a lot, but we don't really need to now with the 'second mode' advantage AND also for tunable force fields - but now we have the allocatable advantage.

 

I think the MP is less necessary than it was, but is still a useful structure.

 

VPP...well...that's another story We need something like this because there will always be the problem of powers you can change being VERY difficult to build any other way.

 

OTOH I know just how nasty a VPP can be. You can use it, for instance, to add to your characteristics. Actual VPP builds require really careful thought and monitoring (and I think there is a temptation t use them a bit too freely sometimes - I've seen games where virtually everyone has one) - but it is an enabling power and the cost structure is reasonable for what it does, and, as I said above, it is does start to spoil the game, the GM should be willing to step in.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I would too' date=' but by 'the rules' that is not the case... the MP does not add up to one big power, but the control cost is part of the AP of the VPP.[/quote']

 

Again...

Huh??

 

Multipowers and VPP's are just frameworks.

 

Active Point caps (which are house rules anyway) only deal with powers (not the frameworks they might be built inside of).

 

Subject to a rules cite to the contrary' date=' I agree with HyperMan. The framework is not a power, so it does not have AP.[/quote']

 

From the 5ER FAQ:

What’s the overall Active Point cost of a Variable Power Pool?

 

The cost of the Pool, plus the Control Cost with any Advantages applied. However, generally speaking what matters for games with Active Point caps is the size of the Pool, not the overall cost of the VPP.

 

Under 6E there is no mention of this, the restriction - I would imagine but am not sure - would likely be removed since the Pool and Control are now bought separately.

 

It's worth a note, I've never once played with a group that counts it that way, only counting the AP that can be put inside the VPP towards any campaign AP Limits.

[archermoo]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I think it put more limitations on it' date=' but without an explicit source for the old rule, I'm not sure what limitations it imposed. At a minimum, I expect the old rule would not have been "can't use two powers from the same framework, so I expect 5e limited it.[/quote']

 

Well, there wasn't an explicit rule governing it. There was a lack of a rule stating that you couldn't use more than one power in a single Attack Action, plus the stated intent from the original designers that that was how they intended it. It just didn't occur to them that it needed to be explicitly stated. My recollection from the early rules is that they made a distinction in the language of the rules between an attack action and activating the power that you were attacking with.

 

You obviously couldn't use powers that that you couldn't activate at the same time since, well, they would have to be active at the same time. And you needed to be able to power them, but that is a restriction on any power use. Steve added restrictions on top of that.

[Kristopher]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

Adding to HM's quote' date=' it is also claimed that this was the implicit rule prior to 5e, which is why the Linked limitation did not also grant an advantage (using two attacks at once), and was intended by the original designers. Assuming that is correct, 5e simply made this rule explicit.[/quote']

 

I'd never heard of anyone using a multi-attack prior to 5th, and found the "we always meant it that way" claim to be a little... odd. It's standard in RPGs that one attack action is one attack, not all the attacks you can use at once, and that there's a serious penalty for trying to use, say, two weapons at once.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

So take a look at the following rules legal VPP version of Batman's Utility Belt:

 

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

 

 

Nice build

 

The difficulty will remain though, as Utech so amusingly mentioned earlier in the thread, that there is no in-game logical reason why Batman should not be able to hand a Flash Pellet to Aquaman to use while he punches someone with his electro-knux, or why he can not MPA with a batarang and a gas bomb. Ultimately the concept (several quite independent items that anyone could use) is not fully realised by a VPP or a MP(unless, in either case the pool is huge, which defeats the purpose of using a framework).

 

If you can not take several VPPs at reduced cost and then 'set' them differently, maybe we need a new framework that realises that concept: certainly 8 relatively minor powers, immensely useful as they probably are, will not be as useful as 4 major power, so the overall cost should definitely be a lot lower.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I'd never heard of anyone using a multi-attack prior to 5th' date=' and found the "we always meant it that way" claim to be a little... odd. It's standard in RPGs that one attack action is one attack, not all the attacks you can use at once, and that there's a serious penalty for trying to use, say, two weapons at once.[/quote']

 

I tried it all the time. Baffled me when GMs said it couldn't be done.

 

I believe, even without needing to be told in person, that there was never an intent to ban the idea and that it was always part of the system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

From the 5ER FAQ:

What’s the overall Active Point cost of a Variable Power Pool?

 

The cost of the Pool, plus the Control Cost with any Advantages applied. However, generally speaking what matters for games with Active Point caps is the size of the Pool, not the overall cost of the VPP.

 

Under 6E there is no mention of this, the restriction - I would imagine but am not sure - would likely be removed since the Pool and Control are now bought separately.

 

It's worth a note, I've never once played with a group that counts it that way, only counting the AP that can be put inside the VPP towards any campaign AP Limits.

 

APs only really matter if you are putting a power in a framework, and as you can not put a framework in a framework, it doesn't matter much to me.

 

I use '60 point examples' all the time in my posts, but I'm losing any reluctance I once had to dispense with campaign AP limits. If the rule has gone, good. It didn't add to the game experience.

 

AP guidelines I'm fine with. AP limits not so much.

[Kristopher]

Re: Multipower imbalance

 

I tried it all the time. Baffled me when GMs said it couldn't be done.

 

I believe, even without needing to be told in person, that there was never an intent to ban the idea and that it was always part of the system.

 

It wasn't in the rules one way or the other, and it never occured to me to even try it, because the rules did state that once you made an attack action, your Phase was done -- not "when you've made all the attacks you can, your Phase is done".