Knockback Attack

[Dr Divago]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Long time ago (more than 1 year...) while i was trying to do a "mass effect hero rpg" i did some writeup of the most popular biotic powers, and i had same problem for the "Throw"

then i came up with this results:

Throw: 4d6 EB; double knockback (+¾) [35 Active Points]
No Damage, Only to KnockBack (-1½), Reduced Range (up to 25”/d6 of effect; -¼), Need to Biotic Sense the Target (-¼), Requires Biotic Skill Roll (-½)
real cost: 10; END cost: 3

 

hope this help you...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Nope. That is only for Killing attacks and their main purpose is to do Killing Body Damage. They already do a lot less STUN than Blasts on average(after taking Standart Defenses into account) and their main pupose stays intact.

 

"Only does STUN" is not only for killing attacks, but can be applied to any attack that does STUN. It has a higher value than -2 STUN Multiple, which still leaves some STUN from the KA.

 

Based on your argument, the limitation should be higher for a Blast, since the Blast loses more than the KA does.

 

Isn't that a blast? Or are you talking about a power that normaly does neither' date=' but get's advantages for it?[/quote']

 

It seems a lot like a Blast, so why does a 7d6 Blast that does no STUN, no BOD and no Knockback cost 20 points? What value is the character achieving for that 20 points? I suppose, if added to an existing Blast, it could at least be used to Spread.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

"Only does STUN" is not only for killing attacks, but can be applied to any attack that does STUN. It has a higher value than -2 STUN Multiple, which still leaves some STUN from the KA.

 

Based on your argument, the limitation should be higher for a Blast, since the Blast loses more than the KA does.

What get's left of that 0.5d6 -2 Stun Multiplier after defenses? even a maximum damage 12 DC KA (24 Killing Body) has only 24 STUN. On average it is 14 Killing Body and 14 STUN (so nothing in effect).

 

And overall I think a 4d6 KA should get less limitation for "no STUN". Like I said, it still does it's main Purpose (doing Body 4-24 Killing Body, 14 on Average). That he does no STUn is a minor limitation for it.

 

It seems a lot like a Blast' date=' so why does a 7d6 Blast that does no STUN, no BOD and no Knockback cost 20 points? What value is the character achieving for that 20 points? I suppose, if added to an existing Blast, it could at least be used to Spread.[/quote']

He get's nothing. But that is his own fault for taking those limitations in that combination. When the power can't do anything by itself and has no further use for the character, then he shouldn't wirte it down in the first place.

On the other hand, if he has a usage for that no effect Blast, then he should pay for it normally (you never know what wierd ideas players can get).

So, no problem that you didn't made yourself.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

What get's left of that 0.5d6 -2 Stun Multiplier after defenses? even a maximum damage 12 DC KA (24 Killing Body) has only 24 STUN. On average it is 14 Killing Body and 14 STUN (so nothing in effect).

 

It's only nothing if the opponent has 14+ defenses.

 

And overall I think a 4d6 KA should get less limitation for "no STUN". Like I said' date=' it still does it's main Purpose (doing Body 4-24 Killing Body, 14 on Average). That he does no STUn is a minor limitation for it.[/quote']

 

This depends on the typical in game results. If the STUN has no value, then why not have KA's do no STUN whatsoever as a default? A KA does both STUN and BOD by default,. Removing one is a limitation.

 

And, by the way, a killing attach getting "a lesser limitation" for No Stun is simply the reverse of a Blast getting "a greater limitation" for No Stun. It doesn't mean -1/2 for the former or -3/4 for the latter is correct.

 

He get's nothing. But that is his own fault for taking those limitations in that combination. When the power can't do anything by itself and has no further use for the character' date=' then he shouldn't wirte it down in the first place.[/quote']

 

So if we make Blast cost 25 points for 1d6, is the fact that characters who rely on Blast as their primary attack power are rendered useless the fault of the system or the fault of the player? Limited Powers that lose virtually all of their effectiveness should have a limitation of -2, by the book. I suggest that a Blast which does no STUN, BOD or Knockback has lost all of its effectiveness, and should therefore see a total -2 limitation based on the Limited Power description. That it does not is, in my opinion, a failure to set appropriate limitation values.

 

Coming back to the Knockback Only construct, since that Knockback Only attack should do no BOD, it can't be constructed accurately using Blast, as the -0 limitation for removing BOD damage also removes knockback. So I should buy a Blast, Does no Stun (-3/4), does no BOD (-0), Does Knockback (+1/2), and that costs me 30 points for 7d6? Removing all damage from the blast and leaving only Knockback isn't even a -1/4 limitation?

 

To me, every stupid result produced by applying the rules is a failure of the rules themselves, not a failure of the player. Sure, you can say "don't build an inefficient character", but any concept that is overpriced relative to other concepts is an "inefficient character". Hero lets you "build anything you can imagine". Implicit in that promise, in my view, is that the mechanics should not favour one concept over another. You should get value for points spent.

[Escafarc]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Going back to the OP I think I would go with the TK and Shove mannuever maybe come up with a TK Martial Arts.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

So if we make Blast cost 25 points for 1d6' date=' is the fact that characters who rely on Blast as their primary attack power are rendered useless the fault of the system or the fault of the player?[/quote']

The fault of the Houseruler who houserules that blast costs 25 Points per 1d6 perhaps?

Could you please stop throwing such obviously flawed concepts in the space? They don't get us anywhere.

 

Coming back to the Knockback Only construct' date=' since that Knockback Only attack should do no BOD, it can't be constructed accurately using Blast, as the[/quote']

Who says it shouldn't do body? After all knockback can do body as a result, so obviously you don't care for not doing body in the first place. Personally I think this should work (and might be approvable by a GM as a dedicated KB only attack):

8d6 Blast, Double KB (+1/2) 60 AP

Does no STUN (-3/4) 34 Real Cost

Even if the GM normally has a problem with Double KB, the overall lack of primary effect here should make it approveable. Unless the target is really fragile defenses (lower than 8 normal PD/ED) he won't get damage.

 

Or we just use one of the officially designed ways to move the target:

TK with Shove

TK with Martial Throw

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Or we just use one of the officially designed ways to move the target:

TK with Shove

TK with Martial Throw

 

Nah, more fun to just argue about it on the internet

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

The fault of the Houseruler who houserules that blast costs 25 Points per 1d6 perhaps?

Could you please stop throwing such obviously flawed concepts in the space? They don't get us anywhere.

 

So why is this the fault of the person who writes the rules, but a purchase of 7d6 Blast, no STUN, no BOD costing 20 is the fault of the player?

 

Who says it shouldn't do body?

 

In Hero 6E' date=' how would you buy an Attack that [b']just knocks back [/b]opponents? I can envision a Jedi attack where they knock back several opponents with just a wave of their hand. The attack doesn't do any damage (directly) but those affected are knocked back and/or knocked down.

 

The OP says so - that was the point of the thread. I've added some emphasis above.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

So why is this the fault of the person who writes the rules' date=' but a purchase of 7d6 Blast, no STUN, no BOD costing 20 is the fault of the player?[/quote']

The same reason buying one of theses is his fault:

Desolidification, Cannot Pass Throuhg Solid Objects, Does not Protect against damage, Cannot escape entagels, grabs or the like

or

1d6 Cosmetic Transform, AVAD (vs. PD/ED)

 

Because it is just, plain STUPID

 

Seriously, the rules aren't there to prevent you from doing obviously stupid things like houseruling the balance overboard or building entirely useless attacks. It's even useless to try:

"The inventors of foolproof designs underestimate the ingenuity of the fools."

 

Furthermore my design does no damage on average on anything but the weakest defenses and this is also a discussion of KB attacks in general.

So the attack may fit your definition of "does no Body" for most enemys.

And we already had the jedi-shove identified as being best described as TK-Shove.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Why is a "Transform, AVAD (vs PD/ED)" "plain STUPID"? I'm sure I could think of a few uses for such a build, especially in a low powered game. I mean, switching from Power Defense to PD or ED is a -1 1/2 Limitation, right?

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Why is a "Transform' date=' AVAD (vs PD/ED)" "plain STUPID"? I'm sure I could think of a few uses for such a build, especially in a low powered game. I mean, switching from Power Defense to PD or ED is a -1 1/2 Limitation, right?[/quote']

Because everyone and his horse get's 2 PD/Ed for free and this does no more tha 2 Body?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

The same reason buying one of theses is his fault:

Desolidification, Cannot Pass Throuhg Solid Objects, Does not Protect against damage, Cannot escape entagels, grabs or the like

 

Pretty useless, all right. And it gets -1/2 for cannot pass through solid objects, -1 for not reducing damage and presumanly at least another -1/2 for not allowing escape from entangles or grabs. That's a total limitation of -2 (power has lost pretty much all its effectiveness), so it is consistent. That said, I'm not convinced those limitations aren't lowballed as well.

 

1d6 Cosmetic Transform, AVAD (vs. PD/ED)

 

Because it is just, plain STUPID

 

Bump that up to 2 or 3d6, and this very inexpensive power gradually transforms most things. Bump a Blast that does no STUN, BOD or Knockback up to 21d6 and it costs 60 points, but is totally useless.

 

Seriously, the rules aren't there to prevent you from doing obviously stupid things like houseruling the balance overboard or building entirely useless attacks. It's even useless to try:

"The inventors of foolproof designs underestimate the ingenuity of the fools."

 

The fact that the rules can never be 100% perfect should not dissuade the designer from making the rules as good and as balanced as they can be. Otherwise, we can just remove point costs entirely and rely exclusively on player and GM judgement.

 

Furthermore my design does no damage on average on anything but the weakest defenses

 

Taken out of context of a campaign, this is not determinable. It's certainly true in Supers games. Standard Heroic games suggest 6 - 10 standard defenses, so BOD will be done on average at the low level and on a high roll can even get past the top end of the range. In such games, it seems likely most mooks will take BOD damage from your construct. Of course, 8 DC is top of the line for such a game, but you suggest that the power should be OK because of the limitations.

 

I also note your construct will average 16 - 7 = 9d6 damage from knockback assuming the defender hits a solid object with enough DEF/BOD to allow 9d6. That's only marginally more BOD than your attack does, rather than being an attack that relies exclusively on knockback for its effects.

 

Because everyone and his horse get's 2 PD/Ed for free and this does no more tha 2 Body?

 

Actually, Transform counts the points on the die, so it does 1 - 6 BOD.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Pretty useless' date=' all right. And it gets -1/2 for cannot pass through solid objects, -1 for not reducing damage and presumanly at least another -1/2 for not allowing escape from entangles or grabs. That's a total limitation of -2 (power has lost pretty much all its effectiveness), so it is consistent.[/quote']

Almost all? I was pretty certain it was now as useless as the no effect blsat. What positive effect did I miss?

 

Bump that up to 2 or 3d6' date=' and this very inexpensive power gradually transforms most things. Bump a Blast that does no STUN, BOD or Knockback up to 21d6 and it costs 60 points, but is totally useless.[/quote']

Because you made it so. Like making an attack only vs. undead when the campaign has no undead. No fault of the rules, fault of the one making a power.

 

The fact that the rules can never be 100% perfect should not dissuade the designer from making the rules as good and as balanced as they can be. Otherwise' date=' we can just remove point costs entirely and rely exclusively on player and GM judgement.[/quote']

Some did that. You should perhaps try it, when you don't like the rules as they are.

 

Standard Heroic games

Have a DC limit of 8. So even a 6d6, Double KB would be above the limit with 9 DC. So we are down to 5d6 vs. 6-10 Defenses. Still "no Body damage on average" land for Blast. Asuming heroic level even uses KB in the first place.

 

Actually' date=' Transform counts the points on the die, so it does 1 - 6 BOD.[/quote']

Right, missread that. Well, that means they are way more powerfull than I thought until now.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Almost all? I was pretty certain it was now as useless as the no effect blsat. What positive effect did I miss?

 

It has at least as much value as the No Stun, no BOD blast. At least it's cheaper, and the level of limitation applied indicates it should have negligible, if any, utility. -3/4 isn't even the "power loses half its effectiveness" level of a -1 limitation, yet the ability is useless.

 

The character can, by the way, pass through a chain link fence, or slip through a 1/2" wide pipe. As the limitation notes, "The character can squeeze through very tiny openings, but cannot actually pass through physical objects."

 

Have a DC limit of 8. So even a 6d6' date=' Double KB would be above the limit with 9 DC. So we are down to 5d6 vs. 6-10 Defenses. Still "no Body damage on average" land for Blast. Asuming heroic level even uses KB in the first place.[/quote']

 

I stand by the simple statement that your evaluation is undertaken in a vacuum. It is actual campaign parameters which are relevant. 5d6 will do BOD to typical mooks in many typical Heroic games. And that 5d6 is going to get a whopping 6 meters of Knockback - less damage than the "non-damaging" Blast which only does Knockback.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

It has at least as much value as the No Stun, no BOD blast. At least it's cheaper, and the level of limitation applied indicates it should have negligible, if any, utility. -3/4 isn't even the "power loses half its effectiveness" level of a -1 limitation, yet the ability is useless.

 

The character can, by the way, pass through a chain link fence, or slip through a 1/2" wide pipe. As the limitation notes, "The character can squeeze through very tiny openings, but cannot actually pass through physical objects."

I was certain the extra Limitation had taken care of that, but I guess it had to be worded: "Takes any still existing Value out of it."

 

If you don't like the -3/4, just change it. There is no need to comvince me of it if you wan't it to be higher so desperately.

 

I stand by the simple statement that your evaluation is undertaken in a vacuum. It is actual campaign parameters which are relevant. 5d6 will do BOD to typical mooks in many typical Heroic games. And that 5d6 is going to get a whopping 6 meters of Knockback - less damage than the "non-damaging" Blast which only does Knockback.

Then the mook get's body damage. What's the problem, it's not like you can take out your Dr. D equivalent with it (or even inconvenience it). Most likely there will be a dozen more. Perhaps you get very efficient and KB him into a second one. Wow, that is really a dangerous attack: it can do 6d6 for only 31 AP. That is totally more dangerous than a plain 9d6 Blast for 45 AP.

You asume that we even use KB in this heroic game, wich is an area it was not designed for.

 

And like as said twice (or more often) already:

TK + Shove

TK + Martial Throw

No Optional rules Nessesary. For true jedi TK, you might wan't to use limited range. This may also make additional TK-STR (beyond Campaign Limits) only for this Maneuver GM approvable.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

I was certain the extra Limitation had taken care of that, but I guess it had to be worded: "Takes any still existing Value out of it."

 

If you don't like the -3/4, just change it. There is no need to comvince me of it if you wan't it to be higher so desperately.

It's not that anyone is desperate for it to be higher. It's that the fact that it is not higher is an inconsistency in the rules. The published values for Limitations have had some weird, way off value for a few things since at least last edition. This is one of them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

I was certain the extra Limitation had taken care of that' date=' but I guess it had to be worded: "Takes any still existing Value out of it."[/quote']

 

Maybe you should read the whole description of the limitation you provide. To me, if we add enough limitations to eliminate any benefit of the power, the limitation total should be quite high. In your example, it is already quite high and the power still has a function, albeit a limited one.

 

If you don't like the -3/4' date=' just change it. There is no need to comvince me of it if you wan't it to be higher so desperately.[/quote']

 

With that -3/4 limitation, all effects of the power are gone. I can apply a -1 limitation (that removes half the power's effectiveness) and get a power with considerably greater effectiveness. How is it rational that a Blast that affects everyone, but has an OAF Ray Gun would be cheaper than a Blast that does no STUN, no BOD and no Knockback to anyone?

 

The value is wonky, as Bigby Wof says.

 

Then the mook get's body damage. What's the problem

 

The problem is that we have not delivered the OP's design goal of a power whose only effect is knockback.

 

Wow, that is really a dangerous attack: it can do 6d6 for only 31 AP. That is totally more dangerous than a plain 9d6 Blast for 45 AP.

You asume that we even use KB in this heroic game, wich is an area it was not designed for.

 

My concern is twofold. First, we should deliver a power that meets the ability envisioned by the player, not hand him something with different effects, such as inflicting BOD. Second, that power should deliver value commensurate with the points spent on it. The character should not be overshadowed by one who spends the same points on a plain vanilla Blast, nor should he overshadow that character.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

With that -3/4 limitation' date=' all effects of the power are gone.[/quote']

Asuming you mean the blast, your sentence is wrong. No STUN still leaves Full KB effect in the room. With the -3/4 and the -0 it looses all effect. But that is only because Steve Long could at no time think that somebody would COMBINE THEM. And seriuosly combining them and sticking to the rulse is just plain, facepalming Stupid.

Like Tasha said in the other treath and I said already:

If it has no effect, don't write it down or write it down at 0 Real Cost. Problem Solved.

 

The problem is that we have not delivered the OP's design goal of a power whose only effect is knockback.

That wasn't his design goal. He wanted a Jedi Style Shove and asumed KB is the frist way to go. He also thought about using TK as second version. We have analyzed both variants.

 

So I miss the point: What are your arguing about actually? Or is this just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[dmjalund]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

It seems like a flaw in blindingly adding two limitations

e.g.Only Works in Sunlight + Doesn't Work in Sunlight

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

It seems like a flaw in blindingly adding two limitations

e.g.Only Works in Sunlight + Doesn't Work in Sunlight

Repped.

 

This is Especially true when they are as conradicting/exclusive as "Only Body Damage and KB" and "Only STUN, no BODY and no KB" or "Only when X" and "Only when not X".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Asuming you mean the blast' date=' your sentence is wrong. No STUN still leaves Full KB effect in the room. With the -3/4 [i']and[/i] the -0 it looses all effect. But that is only because Steve Long could at no time think that somebody would COMBINE THEM. And seriuosly combining them and sticking to the rulse is just plain, facepalming Stupid.

 

A Blast does three things. It inflicts STUN damage, In inflicts BOD damage. It causes Knockback. How can removal of two of these effects be so minor as to be worth no limitation if the third is not even half of the power's effectiveness? Negligible plus less than one half is, at most, half the effect of the power. So where is the other half?

 

That wasn't his design goal. He wanted a Jedi Style Shove and asumed KB is the frist way to go. He also thought about using TK as second version. We have analyzed both variants.

 

His design goal was clearly stated as an attack that did not directly inflict damage, but only pushed the target back.

 

So I miss the point: What are your arguing about actually? Or is this just arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

As stated above - if removal of virtually all of the benefit from a power is a -2 limitation, why is removal of 100% of the effect of a Blast a -3/4 limitation? for that matter, why would leaving only the vestigal ability to do Knockback be almost as expensive as the full Blast?

 

Blast, Does no STUN (-3/4), Does no BOD (-0), Does Knockback (+1/2) costs over 85% the cost of a Blast that also does Stun and BOD.

 

In my view, if the pricing is obviously wrong (ie far too high for what it does, or far too low for what it does), then there is a flaw in the costing.

 

As to Only works in Sunlight and Not in Sunlight, I would again expect the sum of the limitations to be such that comparison to the Limited Power descriptions would indicate that the power has lost virtually all of its effectiveness (ie a total of -2 or higher). Removal of everything a Blast can do leaves a result that indicates it stil has more than half of its efectiveness. I submit it does not retain close to that level of effectiveness, and that this indicates the pricing is not appropriate.

 

Does no Knockback is a -1/4 limitation. That means doing no BOD, by itself, is an advantage. Huh? It is an advantage for my attack to be unable to break down a wall or free me from an entangle? It is advantageous that my attack be completely ineffectual against a target which is immune to Stun? I find there are many cases where limitations seem woefully undervalued compared to the actual effectiveness lost. To me, that is a flaw in the system.

 

It's easily fixed by someone who is experienced with the game (ie has seen how these limitations have far more effect than justified by the point savings) and is willing to modify the limitation value. But the game should be playable by relative newbies as well, and they should not be faced with unhappy players finding that the character with interesting constructs, including limitations, are unable to compete with characters constructed with no limitations whatsoever. The cost differential should be commensurate with the effectiveness differential.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Going back to the OP I think I would go with the TK and Shove mannuever maybe come up with a TK Martial Arts.

 

Or how about stretching, doesn't pass through real space. This is an "offcial" way to build ki powers.

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

Blast' date=' Does no STUN (-3/4), Does no BOD (-0), Does Knockback (+1/2) costs over 85% the cost of a Blast that also does Stun and BOD.[/quote']

You can punch him in a wall. Still BODY, still STUN.

 

Does no Knockback is a -1/4 limitation. That means doing no BOD' date=' by itself, is an advantage.[/quote']

Yes, it is an advantage to have an attack that has no danger of directly (BODY) or indirectly (BODY from KB or Falling) killing it's target. That why you MAKE it an No Body attack in the first place.

If you wan't to do body, don't take a limitation that makes it not doing Body. Simple, isn't it?

 

From what I get you argumentation is as following:

You take two mutually excluse limitations, put them togehter and then say: Well, these two limitations make the power useless and should be higher.

 

My answer is: No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't be combined, since togehter they take 100% of the effect out of the Blast. Instead make a Limitation "Does no BODY, KB or STUN" and value it as high as you want to. See, no problem than can't be solved with a little bit of thinking.

 

@Ninja:

The problem with Stretchign is, it can be grabbed and it activates Damage Shields, not really what we want here. Also, that was not an official sugestion, just an example.

HSMA has several "CH'I" Named powers (none of them made with Stretching). Inlcuding CH'I Telekinesis (simple non Mental TK, with ACV: OMCV vs. DMC and LOS Advantages).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

If you wan't to do body' date=' don't take a limitation that makes it not doing Body. Simple, isn't it?[/quote']

No, it isn't. Somone may very well want a Balst that does Stun and Knockback, but not Body. Also, not doing Body won't be advantagous in every game, hell it's not useful in some grittier Champions games. Does that mean that if a Player has a character concept that calls for such a power he shouldn't get a discount on the points when his Power is made less effective?

 

From what I get you argumentation is as following:

You take two mutually excluse limitations, put them togehter and then say: Well, these two limitations make the power useless and should be higher.

Then you don't get the argument. It's not about actually applying mutually exclusive Limitations (most of the time anyway), it's about using that to see if the Limitation values are reasonably set. If you apply enough Limitations to make a Power worthless and have no, or virtually no, effect than there should be -2 or more in Limitations. If Does No Stun is a -3/4 Limitation (-1/2 loses a third of effect and -1 loses half effect) so it is considered less than half of the Power's utility, than getting rid of the other things the Power can do (in the case of Blast just Body and Knockback) should be at least a -1 since those things account for more than half of the Power's utility based on the book's value for the other Limitation.

 

Simple, isn't it?

[Christopher]

Re: Knockback Attack

 

No' date=' it isn't. Somone may very well want a Balst that does Stun [i']and[/i] Knockback, but not Body. Also, not doing Body won't be advantagous in every game, hell it's not useful in some grittier Champions games. Does that mean that if a Player has a character concept that calls for such a power he shouldn't get a discount on the points when his Power is made less effective?

The no body is always usefull. You have to choose to implement it and if you do, you have an attack that has no risk of accidently doing body or KB, both things that could kill your target when you want it alive.

When your game doesn't calls for that or pulling a punch is good enough for you, have fun with it and don't take the limitation/don't build a stun only blast. If you should build a STUN-only Blast you don't even need a blast without the limitation - just go for killing Attack as your second ranged attack and be done with it.

 

The question is where to put "Body only counts for KB" or "only does KB, no direct Damage":

For the first one, there is still the full STUN damage - so the mayority of the effect stays intact. Perhaps worth a -1/4, but Blast is never good at doing Body and the target can still recive the full KB effect - including being Knocked out of the 200th Floor: 30d6.

Or the damage from knockback itself (wich can be 5d6 on average from a 12 DC blast - should about what reduced Penetration get's you, but didn't calculated it), so not really no blast (or no damage at all for the secodn version).

Plus the chance to STUN the target, so it can't react with activating flying in time to catch a fall. Or that you push him back and get him to the ground, so he needs a half phase to stand up and (perhaps) another one to get in HTH range again (or must use a risky Move-by and stop in front of you).

As you can see, KB in and off itself is still vey usefull. That's why we try to make a cheap KB-Only effect in the first place. It could be worth more than "No Body", since it can still accidently kill when you don't want it (unlike full "No Body").

 

For the later one, it's "No Stun" plus whatever you choose for "Body only counts for KB".

 

For the Limitation values, don't forget that KB is an Optional part of the Blasts effect. The GM can just say "No KB" and this blast won't get you anywhere. Also, you don't recieve one lousy point for it that it can't KB targets. That's why I said time and again:

For moving of Target without damage, use TK with Shove or Martial Throw. No Optional Rules. No questioning about Limitation values. And even a certain amount of flightpath/damage.