How to Teleport a target out of armor?

[BoloOfEarth]

I was looking into an entirely different aspect of Teleportation, and came across this (in 6E1:303 under the Teleportation writeup, bolding added by me):

 

Quote

Usable On Others:  If a character wants to Teleport other people (or inanimate objects) without going along with them himself, he must buy his Teleportation with the Usable As Attack Advantage. When teleporting other persons and objects, the Teleporter must Teleport the whole person or object; he cannot, for example, Teleport a person but not his armor, or only half of a dragon. (He could, however, Disarm someone by Teleporting a weapon or other object out of the victim’s grasp, though he probably suffers an OCV penalty for targeting such a small object.) If his Teleportation cannot Teleport the entire weight of the target person or object, it will not work.

 

So it looks like Teleport Usable as Attack is very explicitly disallowed for the purpose of teleporting a person out of his armor.  From the later sentence, it does seem that Teleport UAA can be used against Accessible Foci, just not Inaccessible Foci (or the person inside an Inaccessible Focus).

[Ninja-Bear]

Right so you use a different power.

[Cantriped]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 6:47 AM, BoloOfEarth said:

I was looking into an entirely different aspect of Teleportation, and came across this (in 6E1:303 under the Teleportation writeup, bolding added by me):

 

 

So it looks like Teleport Usable as Attack is very explicitly disallowed for the purpose of teleporting a person out of his armor.  From the later sentence, it does seem that Teleport UAA can be used against Accessible Foci, just not Inaccessible Foci (or the person inside an Inaccessible Focus).

I dislike how the bolded section is doesn't actually say what it explains itself to mean. Being restricted to only teleporting whole objects or persons has nothing to do with whether or not you can teleport a person separately from their carried objects, or an object separately from the person carrying it. Further, and to be entirely semantic, the supporting text for that bolded nonsense never actually says I cannot teleport armor off of a person, it merely explains that I cannot teleport a person out of their armor. So it is still entirely legal in 6th edition so long as you target the armor, and not the person wearing it (just like you would target a weapon and not the person wielding it in the parenthetical section after the section you've bolded). Although this may seem mechanically identical, it is not. The former would allow me to not only deprive a character of the object, but also potentially expose them to a Hazard they now have less/no defense against (For example, teleporting Defender out of his armor and into a vat of acid), while the latter only allows me to deprive a character of the object (and possibly expose the object to a hazard, such as teleporting Defender's armor into a vat of acid). 

[BoloOfEarth]

(shrug) As always, you're welcome to do whatever you like in your own game.  However, I was pointing out that the RAW quite explicitly disallows using Teleport UAA for exactly the purpose stated in the OP:  teleporting a person out of his armor.

 

As to the argument about teleporting away just the armor rather than just the person inside, again I know you'll interpret things however you wish.  However, I'm comfortable in considering whether a focus is Accessible or Inaccessible to determine whether or not it can be teleported away from the person holding/wearing it.  In my own viewpoint, that interpretation follows the intent of the RAW as presented.**  And I'll note that my opinion is no more or less valid than your opinion.

 

IOW, I think we'll need to agree to disagree on that point.

 

**I wanted to add:  Sure, Steve Long could have spelled out every niggling detail in excruciatingly explicit detail.  But honestly, weren't the 6E rules long enough as-is?

[Ninja-Bear]

Bolo, I agree with you on the explicity of T-port UAA.

 

And I loved the comment about every niggling detail lol.  (I shake my head and say to myself this is why there is “bloat” of rules.)

[Christopher]

On 22.11.2017 at 7:54 PM, Knightgoblin said:

I’m sure this has been discussed several times before. But I couldn’t find the info and I’ve been wondering. How through the games rules (6e preferably) could someone teleport a power armor guy out of his armor?

Teleport yourself out of armor or effectively "disarming" a armor?

 

Teleport yourself (or willing 3rd party) out of their armor:

There are only fringe cases where that would be usefull. Mostly the armor being turned agaisnt you somehow (strong magnetic pull, that D&D spell that makes metal hot).

The GM could or could not allow it. It could be a too easy way to get out of a sticky situation. Or it might be acceptable. Really depends how important the armor is for your characters survival.

 

Teleporting a enemy out of armor:

This depends how the armor is defined. Particular the focus area. But regardless of that, it runs into the issues that Teleport has no defense (the "Movement Power, Usable as attack" Problem). You might be much more likely to pull this off as the teleport special effect for a power, then as the teleport game mechanic.

Accessible Focus: extremely unlikely for a Armor, but it might happen. Such a item would be subject to the "disarm" action. Allowing you disarm it via Teleport: Still a potentially problematic thing. It allows you to circumvent the normal Disarm defense/challenges. The GM has to decide if he wants to open that particular can of worms.

 

Inaccesibel Focus: Nope. The user itself needs about 1 minute to get himself out. The only way you can get rid of it, is to damage it or totally disable the wearer first.* The player literally paid for not being succeptible to such tricks

 

Inaccesible, indestructible Focus: Same as inaccsible, minus the destruction option (usually). But this might be a specific weakness the GM could apply against this. As "the intended way to defeat the wearer".

 

Only in Alternate Identity: This is sometimes used for Power Armors, to get something "that is even harder to disrupt then a IF". So, nope. Unless it is defined as a specific weakness of this transformation.

 

 

*You could build it as a Killng attack somewhat reliably able to kill whole Armor Foci. Then apply a "only disarms armor" Power Modifier. If that modifier would be a limitation or advantage really depends on the armor and setting:

It could be a advantage, as it allows you to negate the armor without ruining it as "loot".

Or could be a limitation, because the enemy is able to relatively quickly re-equip the armor (1-2 Phases).

IIF and OIAID builds would still be immune to it, but it works.

 

 

As for using Movement Powers, UAA in general:

I hate this. It get's around normal defenses. If I wanted to make it, I would use "Telekinesis, Teleport Movement (-0)".

It has the well defined STR contests and similar rules to resist. The ability to Teleport enemies to the other side of walls propably negates the implied "whole body only" limitation.

The only way I could think of getting a enemy out of armor using STR based damage to break it. But TK Str is notoriously ineffective at doing (BODY) damage to begin with.

 

A common cause of such issues are Gravity Power. Realistically Gravity should be able to do things, that no balanced Hero System Power should be able to do. So either realism or balance have to give here.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Christopher said:

 

Inaccesibel Focus: Nope. The user itself needs about 1 minute to get himself out. The only way you can get rid of it, is to damage it or totally disable the wearer first.* The player literally paid for not being succeptible to such tricks

 

 

 

No Christopher he took a LIMITATION therefore took a discount on points. If the character did not take a limitation then yes you would be right however he took a LIMITATION. And of course people bring up that an OIF can only be removed out of combat. Again that is by normal means. However if you buy an ability, it is NOT a normal means. For example If you want to climb faster than normal, you buy clinging with the appropriate limitations. 

[Christopher]

23 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

No Christopher he took a LIMITATION therefore took a discount on points. If the character did not take a limitation then yes you would be right however he took a LIMITATION. And of course people bring up that an OIF can only be removed out of combat. Again that is by normal means. However if you buy an ability, it is NOT a normal means. For example If you want to climb faster than normal, you buy clinging with the appropriate limitations. 

Inaccessible is less of a limitation then accessible. By -1/2.

So making that switch does cost you points.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 12/25/2017 at 6:21 PM, Christopher said:

Inaccessible is less of a limitation then accessible. By -1/2.

So making that switch does cost you points.

But not as much as inherent powers! You are getting a discount for the price.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ok legit question for those of you who are against the T-port outta armor because the armor is OIF, would you have the same reservation if the armor was bought OAF?

 

I ask because I remeber in Dark Champions 4th ed. that Steve suggested for people with 2 weapons to take a lesser custom OAF at -3/4 because you can Disarm them but one weapon at a time.  So I’m thinking what if Power armored guys take a similar limitation? Just a thought.

[Grailknight]

I would. Even if bought OAF, you should still get an opposed roll like a disarm. I would not have a problem vs power armor bought as a vehicle. 

 

The focus rules give very specific ways to deprive a character of his or her focus.  I don't see any game mechanic that supersedes these rules and mechanics always trump SFX in Hero.

[Christopher]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

But not as much as inherent powers! You are getting a discount for the price.

Inherent is about Adjustment Powers. Totally different can of worms.

 

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Ok legit question for those of you who are against the T-port outta armor because the armor is OIF, would you have the same reservation if the armor was bought OAF?

I already answered that:

It is less of a issue because a simple Disarm check could do it.

But I would still prefer it not be build as Teleport, UAA. Because I dislike Movement Powers, UAA deeply.

[Ninja-Bear]

Christopher I was referring to inherent as in no limitations put in a power. I should have been more clear.

 

And Teleport not as in the power but as the special effect.

[Ninja-Bear]

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

I would. Even if bought OAF, you should still get an opposed roll like a disarm. I would not have a problem vs power armor bought as a vehicle. 

 

The focus rules give very specific ways to deprive a character of his or her focus.  I don't see any game mechanic that supersedes these rules and mechanics always trump SFX in Hero.

Well Grailonight if the rules were as explicit as you say, there should be any arguments going on this long. And no game mechanics don’t trump anything,. If that were true then why is there optional rules which change said rules in order to get the feel of the genre? I know Steve Long said what you said but then he also says about common sense, dramatic sense and something thing else that escapes my mind at the moment which supersedes the rules.

[Christopher]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

And Teleport not as in the power but as the special effect.

Then it comes down to the game effect/rules you use to "de-armor someone". We actually had discussions about this (usually it just leaves a enemy naked), and all we found was a number of approximate ideas. Never a concrete, unambigious answer.

 

There is a decent chance that even if we had one, it would be too powerfull for any genre. De-armoing mooks is not even that relevant. Against those it is just a support spell. But once you get to Player or Important Characters, things can backfire really quickly.

[dsatow]

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

Then it comes down to the game effect/rules you use to "de-armor someone". We actually had discussions about this (usually it just leaves a enemy naked), and all we found was a number of approximate ideas. Never a concrete, unambigious answer.

 

There is a decent chance that even if we had one, it would be too powerfull for any genre. De-armoing mooks is not even that relevant. Against those it is just a support spell. But once you get to Player or Important Characters, things can backfire really quickly.

 

That's a decent point.  Even if the power build is totally rule legal, the GM always has final say over whether a power build should be included into their campaign.  We tend to assume that just about any build is acceptable just for sake of argument and to show the poster what options are available.  But the GM can ban any build or power for their game.

[Grailknight]

7 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Christopher I was referring to inherent as in no limitations put in a power. I should have been more clear.

 

And Teleport not as in the power but as the special effect.

 

I think I see where you and I disagree and I'll try to explain my viewpoint.

 

There are powers such as Dispel or Drain or anything that does enough damage to completely break a set of power armor  that  can be used for this.  I would nave no objection to these powers used in this way. I can even see a KA with the SFX of Teleport being applicable. I think that, short of VPP cheese, these powers will ultimately prove more expensive than a power that can perform a one shot KO so have at it.

 

What I object to is using the Teleport mechanic as a means to remove any focus.

 

While it is true that the focus limitation lets you buy powers at a discount, the mechanics of focus all center around how and how often a character can be deprived of that focus. The mechanics of Inaccessible say that it takes a turn out of combat to take the focus, Accessible has a lower standard but still requires an opposed roll of some sort. The Teleport mechanic does not allow for this opposed roll or a non-NND type defense. Vehicles save more points even and If you had UAA teleport and could establish LOS are fair game for the teleport mechanic

 

So as long as you do not use Teleport as the mechanic, I see no reason not to build your power as long as there is a non-NND type defense against it. By which I mean, something like a STR vs STR or DEX vs DEX roll, not something all or nothing like the typical defenses against UAA Movement  or NND's.

[bigdamnhero]

On 1/4/2018 at 9:28 AM, Christopher said:

There is a decent chance that even if we had one, it would be too powerfull for any genre. De-armoing mooks is not even that relevant. Against those it is just a support spell. But once you get to Player or Important Characters, things can backfire really quickly.

That's why I like using Drain or Dispel; they'll be effective against mooks in VIPER powered suits, but Defender's armor is going to be too high-tec (ie too many AP) for most people to affect.