Mental Combat Maneuvers

[Deadman]

In a previous thread we spoke about using Mental Powers with Haymaker and the implications and results of doing so.

 

Should other Maneuvers be fleshed out to include Mental Powers especially Defensive ones?

 

It is my opinion that non-mentalists should have at least some chance of interfering with an incoming Mental attack.  So the following maneuvers should be made available to them.

 

Mental Block (Mind Bar) - Uses OMCV vs. OMCV to allow the target of a Mental Attack the ability to block it.  I like this one because it actually gives a character a reason to use OMCV (an otherwise useless Characteristic for non-mentalists).

 

Mental Dodge (Evasive Will) - Gives the defender +3 DMCV as he concentrates his Willpower to evade the attack.

 

All other aspects of the maneuvers would be the same as their HTH counterparts including Abort, Phase and so forth.

 

Because Mental Powers are invisible to normal senses I would adjudicate that the target would have the briefest of opportunities to utilize one of these maneuvers as the Mentalist enters his mind.  Additionally I would personally say that Mental Powers bought with Invisible Power Effects vs. the Mental Group could not be perceived in this way and the target wouldn't have the ability to use them before the attack hit him.  I don't know if it is in the rules anywhere but Mental powers do not get the benefit of surprise (as they are inherently invisible anyway).

 

Thoughts?

[Christopher R Taylor]

It makes sense that if you allow one combat maneuver to mental powers, then others should also apply.  And an Espers or psi campaign, I'd say they make perfect sense as well.  As for surprise, it makes sense to me that someone out of combat and unprepared would be surprised by a mental assault as much as any other.  Particularly if you say that mental defense is not persistent

[Deadman]

I do see your point as to a mental assault on someone who is out of combat and unprepared.  However, how you do you differentiate that from someone in combat that has no idea that a mentalist is even around?  How is it different than the Clever Assassin in 6E2 pg. 50?  According to RAW Mental Defense is persistent so unless it is a campaign specific determination I would assume that it is on.  I am of the opinion that the Line of Sight and No Range Modifier for Mental Attacks is enough of a benefit that taking this away does very little in terms of effectiveness.

 

I personally don't like the double damage rules for Surprise or unconscious opponents anyway.  As a compromise it is a House Rule in my campaign that the damage doubling comes after defenses.  The caveat to that is if the doubling is due to something that the character brought on himself (vulnerabilities for example).

[Hugh Neilson]

Both those maneuvers make sense to me.  The source material often shows non-mentalists consciously resisting mental attacks.

[Surrealone]

I think that if you're going to let non-mentalists dodge/block/etc. mental attacks, then you must also balance this out by eliminating the all-or-nothing nature of mental powers.  The Ultimate Mentalist (4e) details this on page 24 -- by suggesting that unsuccessful mental attacks impose certain penalties on the target to represent the target fighting off the mental attack.

 

Thus, I would expect someone performing a mental block or mental dodge to a) not be able to combine those with other maneuvers, 2) have to take time to perform them (just as with a physical maneuver), and 3) for them to incur the penalties suggested by the Ultimate Mentalist if they fight off the attack (on top of any time the maneuver, itself, took).

 

Frankly, though, I would expect only those skilled in mental abilities to be able to perform a mental block ... or a mental dodge.  The idea, here, is that mental discipline should apply just like martial discipline applies to martial block and martial dodge.  If you go that route, then a mental block and a mental dodge should likely cost CP as skills (just as martial skills do) ... in which case I wouldn't think the penalty for fighting off the attack should be levied since the character is plying a skill for which s/he paid ... to represent a mental discipline s/he has akin to a martial discipline a martial artist has.

[zslane]

Resisting mental attacks is already represented by the initial 0-phase opportunity for the target to break free using an EGO Roll. If they have the sort of psychic training that would permit a "Mental Dodge", then they should have either extra EGO (higher MCV and higher EGO Rolls) or CSLs with mental combat. This makes more sense to me since sensing the attack should only be possible after the attack has begun (i.e., the attack roll has been made) anyway.

[Surrealone]

zslane,

That's a good point about the Breakout Roll. 

 

Deadman,

Would your system allow both the Breakout Roll -and- the mental block/dodge?  If so, that seems like you're giving the target 2 chances to avoid the mental attack, which begs the question of whether you will give the equivalent of the Breakout Roll to folks for use in Melee and Ranged combat, too ... so that those forms of combat also get 2 potential changes to avoid the attack should someone wish to block or dodge after such an equivalent roll is made.  (You've got to balance it out, right?)

 

Thoughts?

[Christopher R Taylor]

However, how you do you differentiate that from someone in combat that has no idea that a mentalist is even around?

 

 

I figure in combat you're will is steeled to fight, you're alert and defending yourself and looking for threats, so you can't be surprised unless something really impressive happens (just like surprise in combat with any other attack).  At least that's how I'd justify it

[Deadman]

I think that if you're going to let non-mentalists dodge/block/etc. mental attacks, then you must also balance this out by eliminating the all-or-nothing nature of mental powers.  The Ultimate Mentalist (4e) details this on page 24 -- by suggesting that unsuccessful mental attacks impose certain penalties on the target to represent the target fighting off the mental attack.

 

Thus, I would expect someone performing a mental block or mental dodge to a) not be able to combine those with other maneuvers, 2) have to take time to perform them (just as with a physical maneuver), and 3) for them to incur the penalties suggested by the Ultimate Mentalist if they fight off the attack (on top of any time the maneuver, itself, took).

 

Frankly, though, I would expect only those skilled in mental abilities to be able to perform a mental block ... or a mental dodge.  The idea, here, is that mental discipline should apply just like martial discipline applies to martial block and martial dodge.  If you go that route, then a mental block and a mental dodge should likely cost CP as skills (just as martial skills do) ... in which case I wouldn't think the penalty for fighting off the attack should be levied since the character is plying a skill for which s/he paid ... to represent a mental discipline s/he has akin to a martial discipline a martial artist has.

 

Well first the Block or Dodge would be the same as if it was a physical attack in that it would essentially take the place of an attack.  Other than that I don't see that any concession is needed.  Mental Attacks already have a +2 Advantage on all other attacks in that they are inherently Line of Sight (+1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2) and Fully Invisible to all but Mental Senses (+1) and this doesn't even mention the cheaper cost and generally lower defenses of people with regard to DMCV and Mental Defense.  Truth be told they are already way out of balance and smart players can readily take advantage of this.  No, I would say that adding the Block and Dodge Maneuver goes a very short way to actually trying to level the already unbalanced field.

 

Generally speaking Mentalists run around with at least a good 4 point advantage on other archetypes with regard to OMCV/DMCV so I don't feel it unbalancing at all to let a normal character give up an attack to try to dodge or block.  As I said before, it also give characters a reason to at least HAVE OMCV.  As for the all or nothing nature, this is tempered by what the Mentalist chooses to do.  If they are greedy and always looking for the +30 effect on Mind Control then sure they may be disappointed when a target breaks out on his 0 Phase action.  However, if they are smart and use their powers wisely they are almost guaranteed success on the lion's share of their attacks.  Even their direct damage attack Mental Blast has a huge advantage over standard attacks.  Not only does it hit more frequently but in most cases will deal more damage per hit than a comparable standard attack.

 

I love examples...

 

In many campaigns the average OCV/DCV hover around the 9 range with attacks in the 60 Active Point area and defenses around 30/30 or so.  In contrast DMCVs tend to be no more than 5 in most cases and Mental Defense, if present, may be about 10. So what you have is about a 65% chance of hitting with a physical attack with Damage of about 12 STUN.  On the Mentalist side they will have a >90% chance of hitting with about the same STUN (11 if MD=10).  This must also take into account that they get no Range penalty and can launch attacks from anywhere they can see the target.  The damage looks pretty balanced but the chance to hit!  Wow!  The problem with Mentalists is they generally don't have a high DCV and probably have rather low physical defenses but yet they have the opportunity to Dodge or Block an incoming physical attack.  Shouldn't a target of their powers have the same ability?

 

YMMV,

 

Deadman

[Hugh Neilson]

I think that if you're going to let non-mentalists dodge/block/etc. mental attacks, then you must also balance this out by eliminating the all-or-nothing nature of mental powers.  The Ultimate Mentalist (4e) details this on page 24 -- by suggesting that unsuccessful mental attacks impose certain penalties on the target to represent the target fighting off the mental attack.

The Mentalist himself can eliminate the All or Nothing nature of his mental powers by making them Cumulative. In fact, one thought I have had (expressed for 6e) was to make all mental attacks 10 points per 1d6, but fully Cumulative (the cost is equivalent to Cumulative with an 8x cap, so close enough). That would remove the binary nature of mental powers, but they would also lose the "1 hit KO" aspect they presently possess.

 

Thus, I would expect someone performing a mental block or mental dodge to a) not be able to combine those with other maneuvers, 2) have to take time to perform them (just as with a physical maneuver), and 3) for them to incur the penalties suggested by the Ultimate Mentalist if they fight off the attack (on top of any time the maneuver, itself, took).

I read 1 and 2 as implicit in adding these to Combat Maneuvers. I don't see 3 as necessary at all.

 

Frankly, though, I would expect only those skilled in mental abilities to be able to perform a mental block ... or a mental dodge.  The idea, here, is that mental discipline should apply just like martial discipline applies to martial block and martial dodge.

I think you could have improved Mental Block and Mental Dodge as part of a Mental Martial Arts package. Anyone can use a basic Block and a basic Dodge, and the source material shows plenty of non-mentalists concentrating hard to counter mental attacks, so the idea of maneuvers to do so makes sense to me. It seems no more "overpowered" than the ability to use an action to boost physical DCV or use OCV to block an incoming physical attack.

[rsbrehm]

I think one thing you guys are missing is that mental powers are inherently invisible.  So without Mental Awareness no one should be allowed to abort to do anthing against mental powers.  (Which explains why the majority of them allow the immediate EGO breakout roll.)  Also, "Dive for Cover" allows you to basically avoid any ranged attack in regular combat - but if it isn't a "Mental Area of Effect" they shouldn't be able to use that one either.     

[Stanley Teriaca]

You think it would be possible to buy mental martial maneuvers much like you would buy normal martial maneuvers using Hero System Martial Arts?

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Stanley Teriaca said:

You think it would be possible to buy mental martial maneuvers much like you would buy normal martial maneuvers using Hero System Martial Arts?

 

I'd be cautious about it.  Things don't balance.  The mentalist likely doesn't care about OMCV, DMCV, or Range...if he cares about Range, it's because he bought a sizable limitation, and PSLs will be a cheap counter.

 

And of the maneuver elements, which apply?  Grab opponent, disarm weapon, grab weapon, opponent falls...do any really fit a mental attack?  Maybe Opponent Falls...altho I'm not sure the rules for this work well with a STUN-only attack.  There's little reason for NND or Flash-style...buy a Flash that's OMCV vs. DMCV and Works Against Mental Def instead of Flash Defense.

 

So, whatcha gonna buy, other than damage, on the maneuvers?  And flesh out the 10 point min, for rare occasions of mentalist-on-mentalist combat.  I often define a Power Strike, for blaster types who can cope with 4-6 points of Range Mods, as +4 DCs (6 points) and -1 DCV.  For a mental attack, a -1 DMCV would only be meaningful if someone can counterattack...mentally.  You're basically buying an additional 2d6 damage, no END cost...for 10 points.  (The other maneuvers the rules require, are afterthoughts, all things considered.)  With no drawback.  There are already concerns that martial arts are excessively good.

 

Also note that the CSLs for mental powers are the same cost for mental blast, and actually cheaper for a broader mentalist.  "All mental powers" costs only 6 points.  NOT cheap, to be sure, but it can be worth considering for someone with several mental powers.

[Stanley Teriaca]

Mostly mental "Strike", mental "Block", mental "Dodge", and +EGO make sense.

[LoneWolf]

1 hour ago, Stanley Teriaca said:

You think it would be possible to buy mental martial maneuvers much like you would buy normal martial maneuvers using Hero System Martial Arts?

 

Rsbreehm brings up a good point.  In normal combat a character that cannot perceive her attacker with a targeting sense is at a severe disadvantage.  Normally if you cannot perceive your attacker you are at ½ DCV vs that attacker.  You have to take a ½ phase action to make a non-targeting perception roll to avoid this.  That is not the case with mental powers.  The target of a mental power always has their full MDCV against mental attacks even if they do not have the ability to sense the attack.  For this reason, I would limit the use of mental combat maneuvers to those that have the ability to perceive the attack.  

 

Also, not all maneuvers will have a mental equivalent.  

[Gauntlet]

You could think about using Hand Attack with an advantage based on mental combat value, and an possible Advantage uses EGO rather than STR. You would of course require GM acceptance of this but it could be a way of creating mental based Martial Arts.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, rsbrehm said:

I think one thing you guys are missing is that mental powers are inherently invisible. 

 

Not really missing it, per se, as assuming a very specific target (mind).  Invisible is not inherently undetectable:  under the right conditions, a glass door is invisible (enough).  When I walk into it, though, I know exactly where it is.

 

An attacker stealthing up behind me with a dagger is effectively invisible, but when the knife slides in next to a kidney, I will instantly know where the attack came from and make haste to defend from there.

 

Assuming the mind is the target of an ECV (and it _is_ an assumption; the rules allow the ECV- based attack to target the soul or the spleen just as handily), there is an assumption being made that a person should be able to use some sort of defensive maneuver to protect his mind.  I suspect that this is because there is no ECV-bases hit location chart, so we are envisioning some sort of psionic equivalent to eithee wrapping you arms around your head or even raising your fists and elbows such that you might better protect your face as you prepare a counter strike.

 

Within that assumption, I have no real problem with.  Admittedly that may be because I have been allowing this with online combat between deckers and booters in my cyberpunk campaigns for years, and not only has there been no real problem with it, it adds a bit of narrative flair to an otherwise routine dice-off.

 

The idea, I presume, is akin to "is!  Someone is poking me in the mind with a pointed thought and a sharp wit!  I move my focus to escaping / evading / making this difficult for the attacker (ie,  a "dodge" or a "block" of a sort).

 

But admittedly, I _am_ making an assumption based off my own experiences with a similar idea.

 

 

5 hours ago, rsbrehm said:

So without Mental Awareness no one should be allowed to abort to do anthing against mental powers.  (Which explains why the majority of them allow the immediate EGO breakout roll.)

 

The EGO breakout roll is both immediate and lacking a requirement for Mental Awareness.  The existence of the automatic brakeout roll- respectfully; I am not yelling, arguing, or calling any of us right or wrong.  I am pointing out a potential alternate interpretation that I find to be equally well-supported by the rules.  We good?  

 

Excellent! 

 

the existence of the automatic immediate breakout roll can also suggest that you are, at least on some level of effectiveness, immediately aware that something is stabbing your mind and that you are able to reflexively attempt to shake it off.

 

that being said, why is it not possible to- particularly when going in fully-prepared to face a mentalist- to instead attempt to thwart them in some other way?  Like a dodge or a block.

 

 

5 hours ago, rsbrehm said:

 Also, "Dive for Cover" allows you to basically avoid any ranged attack in regular combat - but if it isn't a "Mental Area of Effect" they shouldn't be able to use that one either.     

 

 

This one I agree with you, at least with regard to typical psychic supers brain-to-brain beam struggle sorts of things.  I allow it in my cyberpunk games because there _is_ cover: the network is filled with data in transit all the time; jump behind a packet or roll under a GET statement or something.

 

However, I should also point out that I similarly do not allow it when there is _no cover_ within reasonable range of a character's typical movement.  It does not matter what the book says, if there are no old doors in that ditch, the nukes will get you. 

 

 

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Also, not all maneuvers will have a mental equivalent.  

 

Why is this a problem?  Realistically, the only thing that can be "haymakered" is a punch.  The very word refers to a specific type of barnyard swing coming feom somewhere either just behind your other shoulder or just under your anklebone.

 

Just a few years of constant whining, and now you can do it with laser eyes and freeze breath.  Dive for mental cover if you want; hise behind some other guy's mind.

 

Or define it differently- "I go mental panic!" And create so much noise the necessary signal the attacker needs is momentarily very difficult to perceive.

 

Haymaker the blasted thing.  if you don't, the fans will whine about it until they can.

 

[LoneWolf]

@Duke Bushido  Dive for cover is what immediately came to mind for maneuvers that should not have a mental equivalent. There are probably others, but I would have to go through the list of maneuvers before decided on them.

 

Ultimate Mentalist from 5th edition had a section on mind-to-mind combat that might be useful for this.  It gives some options to mental combat that could be interesting.  
 

Edited August 27 by LoneWolf

[dmjalund]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

@Duke Bushido  Dive for cover is what immediately came to mind for maneuvers that should not have a mental equivalent.

It might allow you to dive out of Line-of-sight for mentalists that require it.

[LoneWolf]

The problem with using maneuvers against mental attacks is that a lot of times both the attacker and the attack are not perceived by the target.  In many cases the target would be considered out of combat.  Can a character that is out of combat dodge the attack of a hidden sniper that is using a gun with a silencer?  Even if they are in combat not being able to perceive either the attack or the attacker usually limits what a character can do.  Can a character block the shot of a hidden sniper using a silenced gun while in combat?  The section on block in 6E2 page 58 states that a character generally cannot block an attack they cannot perceive.  That should apply to mental blocks as well.

 

The other thing that is being ignored is the nature of mental combat.  Against normal attacks if a character is out of combat their DCV is 0 and they take double damage.  This does not apply to mental attacks.  If I hit a sleeping character with a punch, they are at 0 DCV and take x2 stun.  If I hit that same character with an ego blast, he has his full MDCV and does not take any extra stun.  

 

I can see allowing a mentalist to use the equivalent of some maneuvers when fighting another mentalist to make things more interesting.  I could also see allowing a character with mental awareness to use some defensive mental maneuvers. Beyond that I don’t see the reason they should be used. 

 

The last thing I would point out is that these maneuvers usually take at least a half phase to use if not longer.   If they are allowed, it is likely to allow a mentalist to shut down most of a team.  Now all a mentalist has to do is show up and let himself be spotted and his opponents are likely to try and defend by using a mental dodge and not be able to attack because they are using a mental dodge or dive for cover.  You could even buy a large-scale change environment that does a point of stun going against mental defense and it would cause tie up most of the PC’s allowing his allies to do whatever they want.   
 

[Gauntlet]

I can definitely see mental martial attacks but perhaps with another power as well. Say Extra Dimensional Movement, Mental Realm. Where you use EGO as STR and Mental Defense as PD/ED, and any Martial Arts must be one that works in the Mental Realm (perhaps a disadvantage or in some cases an advantage).

 

Would be a combat within a combat as while the contestants might see it as several phases or perhaps even turns, everyone else wouldn't see it at all, just a single phase.

 

Defense wise to avoid going to the mental plane would be an Ego vs Ego roll of the attacker and defender. The roll would be be based on Ego and the defender would get a +1 to their roll requirement for each 5 points of Mental Defense.

Edited August 27 by Gauntlet

[Steve]

I would suggest using ranged martial art maneuvers for building mental maneuvers. The cost structure is also a bit different than for HTH maneuvers, so something like that cost structure could be looked at for mental maneuvers.

[Doc Democracy]

On 8/27/2024 at 1:59 AM, LoneWolf said:

@Duke Bushido  Dive for cover is what immediately came to mind for maneuvers that should not have a mental equivalent.

 

The only real difference in this is line of sight, would you deny use of that defensive manoeuvre against a line of sight Blast?

 

I think the whole thing is that we cannot relate to what a mental attack actually is, none of us have ever experienced psychic combat in the manner we have physical.

 

In my head, I have a system where the attacking mind "locks on" and then seeks to impose an effect.  That is why the defender is aware of the attack, even if no one else is. That "locking on" would provide the opportunity to use defensive manoeuvres.

 

The locking on, in physical combat, is seeing the target and there are not many folk sensitive to being seen.

 

Doc

[LoneWolf]

The idea behind a mental maneuver is that is affects your mental CVs not your physical.  It would be the opposite of a physical maneuver.  When I perform a dodge my DCV goes up, but my MDCV does not change.  A mental dodge would be the opposite, your MDCV would go up, but your DCV would remain unchanged. 

 

I would allow a character to perform a physical dive for cover, and if the character ends up in a location that does not have line of sight, they would not be able to be attacked with a mental power.  What I would not allow is a mental dive for cover, because it makes no sense.  With a mental dive for cover you would also not actually move.   Allowing a character to physically move with a mental dive for cover would be abusive because it would not affect the characters DCV.  Dive for cover is supposed to be a risky maneuver that gives you the chance of getting out of the way, but if you don’t make the roll, you are at a disadvantage.  Being at ½ MDCV is not a disadvantage if you are not fighting a character with mental attacks.  

 

Characters attacked by a mental attack already can defend against it.  A character that is attacked by a mental attack always gets their full MDCV even when surprised or out of combat.  If I shoot target that is not in combat and is unaware of me the target is at 0 DCV and cannot dodge my attack. He also takes x2 stun from my attack.   If I use a mental attack in the same circumstance, he is at full MDCV and takes no extra damage.  The character being attacked by the mental attack is able to defend themselves a lot better than the one being shot.  If you allow characters without mental awareness to react to mental attacks by aborting to defensive actions, you should also have the character be O MDCV and take x2 stun when out of combat.

 

Block already states that you have to be aware of the attack to block it. That means a character cannot block an invisible attack. Mental block should have the same requirement.  Unless a character has mental awareness, he cannot use mental block on an attack.  Realistically that leave only mental dodge as a way to avoid mental attacks.  
 
In the games I have played in when the character cannot perceive that he is being attacked they cannot take defensive action vs that specific attack.  If they suspect they are about to be attacked they can take defensive actions vs all attack (They can dodge, but not block).  But the defensive action must be declared before the attacking character decides to attack and cannot be made as a reaction to the attack they cannot perceive. If they can perceive they are being attacked that is completely different. So, dodging when your DEX comes up or aborting to a dodge before that is fine, but aborting to dodge vs the hidden sniper using a silenced gun when he attacks would not be.  The same should apply to mental attacks.  

 

If using the mental attack is obvious to characters without mental awareness, then that is different situation.  So, if the mental attack has an obvious focus, or limitations like gestures or incantations and the target is aware that the attacker uses mental attacks they could react as normal.  But if the attacking mentalist can just stand there and do nothing the character without mental awareness should not be able to use mental maneuvers in reaction to being attacked.  They could decide to do a mental dodge before the attack, but not in reaction to being attacked. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/26/2024 at 6:14 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Why is this a problem?  Realistically, the only thing that can be "haymakered" is a punch.  The very word refers to a specific type of barnyard swing coming feom somewhere either just behind your other shoulder or just under your anklebone.

 

Energy Blast was renamed Blast because people argued it could not be against physical defense.  Seduction was renamed Charm to reduce the sexual overtones (d20's Persuasion would have been a much better choice, IMO).  Maneuvers started out as HTH only and were broadened, but not renamed.  The older editions you play may well still have "Kick" instead of accepting that you can Strike with a headbutt, elbow smash, foot, knee, etc.

An exercise to rename maneuvers to a more generic name ("All-out attack" instead of Haymaker, for example) could be considered, but that's what the extension to non-HTH maneuvers really means.

 

On 8/27/2024 at 10:29 AM, LoneWolf said:

The problem with using maneuvers against mental attacks is that a lot of times both the attacker and the attack are not perceived by the target.  In many cases the target would be considered out of combat.  Can a character that is out of combat dodge the attack of a hidden sniper that is using a gun with a silencer?  Even if they are in combat not being able to perceive either the attack or the attacker usually limits what a character can do.  Can a character block the shot of a hidden sniper using a silenced gun while in combat?  The section on block in 6E2 page 58 states that a character generally cannot block an attack they cannot perceive.  That should apply to mental blocks as well.

 

The other thing that is being ignored is the nature of mental combat.  Against normal attacks if a character is out of combat their DCV is 0 and they take double damage.  This does not apply to mental attacks.  If I hit a sleeping character with a punch, they are at 0 DCV and take x2 stun.  If I hit that same character with an ego blast, he has his full MDCV and does not take any extra stun. 
 

 

The discussion so far has focused only on mental maneuvers, not who would be able to use them. I don't think they should be "everyman maneuvers" - schoolkids throw punches and dodge, but they don't use mental attacks or defend against them.  Whether they are purchased (like martial maneuvers) or assumed to be available to PCs and other notables (in an ESPers game, for example)  or become available to anyone with mental powers would have to be decided.

Perhaps they are like "martial maneuvers" - purchased separately, and maybe only available to characters who either have mental powers or mental awareness.  Perhaps some are more broadly available (really concentrating to enhance mDCV at the cost of an attack action, for example).

Where does it say that mental blast does not follow the normal double stun rule?  I think you are correct on mDCV, although I'm not sure if there is a cite for that either.