Alcibiades Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 I have a question regarding limitations that are shared throughout all the slots in an MP, but have different values. As illustrated thusly: I know the following is legal: Multipower: x points in reserve, all slots Gestures (-1/4) 1. Power 1, Gestures (-1/4) 2. Power 2, Gestures (-1/4) Is the FOLLOWING legal? Multipower, x points in reserve, all slots Gestures (-1/4) 1. Power 1, Gestures (-1/4) 2. Power 2. Gestures (throughout; -1/2) So all slots have Gestures, but with different values. Can the base MP still take the limitation? ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndreare Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 Yes, both are legal. It is more explicit in Hero 6th or Fred, than it is in champions complete. But as long as all slots have the limitation the whole pool can have them up to the lowest level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted October 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 Fantastic. Do you have a page ref in 6th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndreare Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 6th ed 1 page 400. Under limitations. It is only 3 paragraphs so easy to miss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted October 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Common sense suggests, to me anyway, that it is perfectly legal, because, well, why not? What would be the basis for objecting to it? It doesn't seem to violate any of the costing formulas, or even approach a point of ambiguity. Or does it and I'm just missing something subtle here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted October 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Mainly because I have never seen it in a published character writeup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 "Well, why not?" isn't exactly book legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 Well, let's not forget Rule 0. Not everything is going to get expliclt mention in the text; there will always be much that must be logically inferred from what is there. Consequently, one can reasonably declare something to be "legal" so long as it doesn't contradict anything else in the rules. It is by this exercise of common sense that we avoid rulebooks that are 2,000 pages long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 It is actually expressly allowed (with GM permission) by the rules, so I'm not sure why we are discussing why it should logically be legal when it already is. Unless someone said it shouldn't be and I missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.