How to Teleport a target out of armor?

[bigdamnhero]

I think a lot of this goes back to where you fall on the old Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist spectrum. "This is how it should work" is a very Simulationist attitude. "How do we want it to work?" can be either Gamist (if you're going for power/effectiveness) or Narrativist (if you're going for what makes a better story). Neither approach is inherently better than the others, of course, nor are they mutually-exclusive. Just depends on what gives you & your players the most fun. Personally, I used to be much more Simulationist, but have become much more Narrativist as I mellow in my old age.

 

There's no question that Hero is one of the best Simulationist tool boxes in gaming. And there's certainly plenty for the Gamists to play around with. But you can also use those same tools to drive Narrative choices. I look at Limitations and so forth as one way for the players to have meta-level in put into what kind of games they want to play. Say a character wants to have a big hammer with lots of cool powers. But they don't want to have it taken away from them all the time because that's not fun for them. So they just don't take the Focus Limitation and technobabble their way into a justification for why it can't be taken away. ("See, it always returns to my hand after I throw it...") It's the inverse of the character who has family, but doesn't want them to become hostages every other episode; so he lists them under his "supporting cast" but doesn't take them as DNPCs.

 

As for the specifics for what protects someone from being teleported out of their armor, the usual comic-book answer is "It's shielded." Which can mean Power Defense, or "Blocks Teleportation" or whatever you want it to mean.

 

Edit: For me, it also varies from genre to genre & game to game. I used to run a modern-day monster hunter game for a bunch of engineers that was very Simulationist. Superheroes tend to be more Narrativist to me, because the logic of "how" things work is so flexible anyway. YMMV

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I have two types of response to this:  :-)

 

1 - There are ALWAYS reasons why something that looks like a focus is not.  For the powersuit idea the two that immediately come to mind are that the armour simply cannot be removed by other people, it is mage armour and only the bearer can don or remove it; it is nano-tech and immediately reforms itself if removed.  In neither case would teleporting the man out of the armour work in SFX considerations.

 

2 - the player has a right to decide whether his/her powers may be removed without his consent (outside of game-mechanical things like drain etc).  It is not for the GM to say that it is impossible to have a powersuit character without at some point losing access to all the powers granted by that powersuit.  If the player thinks the powersuit is cool then why not allow it, and simply not choose to remove it from him at points where those characters who did take the discount would lose their's.

 

 

Doc

 

As I see it,  any power that would be capable of this has issues that cannot be easily resolved .

 

First, you are starting from the premise of building a power to work against a SFX: Power Suit.  If the target gets all his powers from a Magic Belt or Bioweapon Sword then the power does  what? If nothing then it's a power built to hose one type of SFX and I'd allow it as a Suppress, Dispel or Transform. I'd also have no problem with Teleport:UAA if the Power Armor in question was built as a vehicle. If it works on the other SFX then it's an instant win against anyone who uses any type of focus , which brings up issue two.

 

If you want to say it can be used against any Focus bought with Inaccessible then I'd go with a flat emphatic no. The power breaks the contract of the game. Taking an Inaccessible Focus is supposed to require 1 turn out of combat. That is the risk condition that the creator of the target agreed to by taking that limitation, To create powers that change that is penalizing the player without giving any bonus in return. I'd expect enraged players if I was the GM using this against them and I'd have ... problems with any GM that tried it on me. 

 

Lastly, this power has no assurance that it will work at all. There are plenty of things that look like a focus but aren't(off the top of my head, full body cyborg conversion, psychic manifestation, symbiotic bioweapon  and the others named above) and the user has no way of knowing in a combat situation which is which without an appropriate  KS or spending the out of combat time trying to disable  the target(who may be violently resisting such attempts).

 

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

To be fair, Zephrosyne, did say that he was very pro-active in setting out build rules ahead of a campaign.  I am afraid I do not have the energy to do the amount of work for this to work consistently.  If it is explicit on how certain things should be built before I start out then I guess I would adapt my concept to those rules.  

 

I think most games do not have that much in the way of build detail to police the variety possible in the game.

[Tech]

I think this is one of those situations where no one perfect power design will work, kind of like trying to build TimeStop. 

 

For myself as GM, if someone were to try it, I would ask for the justification of the power (how does this power work and why do you have it?) and then the proposed build of the power. Regardless of how it was built, it's going to suffer stiff critique from me.

[Doc Democracy]

I think it all comes down to communication. As long as everyone is on the same page then all is well...

[massey]

I'd probably do it like this, considering all the possible variables and different builds that are possible.

 

Defender has OIF power armor.  He saved significant points, with the knowledge that certain things could take his powers away.  I would allow Teleport, Usable Against Others, Indirect, to get him out of his armor.  I'd require Indirect to affect him through his armor (and not just teleport everything together).  Normally it takes a full turn to remove an OIF from someone, but in the case of certain special effects or power builds I'd allow it to go faster (or slower).  A move like this is kind of a cheap shot, but it's very specialized and there's no guarantee it will work.  Hardened armor or something built not as OIF (or as a vehicle) would be immune to this.  This attack is similar in nature to the old 4th ed Instant Change, usable against others maneuver.  It's cheesy, but them's the breaks.  OIF armor is also vulnerable to Dispels and penetrating killing attacks, so specialized attacks can already screw it over.  That's why you get a -1/2 limitation for it.

 

Defender Mk II has OIHID on his powers.  Teleport, UAO, Indirect probably wouldn't work on this.  Probably.  While he has a suit of armor, it doesn't necessarily exist as a separate item as far as the game is concerned.  If you can teleport him out of his armor, it's probably like Iron Man 3 where it comes right back to him.  Or maybe it's like Iron Man was in the Amazing Spider-Man, where it's just the suit flying around and he's off taking a bath with a supermodel, with a neural link connecting him to the suit.  At the OIHID level, there's lots of handwavium that can be applied to explain why the one attack doesn't work now.  To stop this type of armor, you probably need a Suppress/Drain or a Transform.

 

Defender Mk III has no limitation at all.  Narratively, he is never caught outside of his armor when he doesn't want to be.  It just doesn't happen.  You definitely need a Suppress/Drain or Transform to affect him.

 

 

I'm fine with somebody taking the first type of power, and just shrugging my shoulders if it doesn't work against someone without the focus limitation.  There are a lot of times in comics where powers work unusually, or don't affect somebody when you think it should.

[zslane]

The design-for-effect (abstraction) approach of using the Hero System is native to its intent by its designers. Of course, you can design-by-mechanics (direct simulation) instead, whereby you build a power according to how it is actually doing its thing (Teleport for something being teleported out of its armor) rather than according to the end result (Transform for a thing in armor that is no longer a thing in armor), but the rules of the game often make direct simulation extremely cumbersome, whereas the abstraction of design-for-effect + SFX often gets you there much more easily, both in terms of game play and in terms of power write-up complexity.

 

But some folks are really uncomfortable with that much abstraction, and I can sort of understand why. Too much abstraction obscures what's supposed to be really going on when the power is used, making it difficult to adjudicate in unusual or complex situations. It is the classic struggle between simulational accuracy and fundamental playability. This is one of the big reasons, IMO, that systems like the Hero System are such a challenge to play. "Getting it just right" is not as straightforward as one might think.

 

There's also the struggle between play styles. And this is where my own personal philosophy of RPG play kicks in:

 

Point build systems give players the false impression that they are in control of the campaign through their character. They forget, however, that the GM must approve everything on the character sheet. They forget that when they take an action, they must wait for the GM to tell them what the result is, or if that action is even allowed (there could be extenuating circumstances the players aren't aware of). They also forget that just because they paid extra points (or, rather, chose not to take a Limitation discount) for their powers, it doesn't mean the GM isn't free to exercise his ultimate authority and override the canonical game mechanics in order to achieve a particular dramatic effect. Obviously the GM can't do this too often or the players cease to feel as though they have any agency in the game, but if your powered-armor guy isn't getting stripped of that armor now and then (Focus Limitation or not), you're doing something wrong IMO. Players who can't handle the ebbs and flows of the dramatic needs of an RPG campaign (in any system) should probably do something else with their time (or play in a Care Bear group).

[DasBroot]

2 hours ago, massey said:

This attack is similar in nature to the old 4th ed Instant Change, usable against others maneuver.  It's cheesy, but them's the breaks.  OIF armor is also vulnerable to Dispels and penetrating killing attacks, so specialized attacks can already screw it over.  That's why you get a -1/2 limitation for it.

 

Great. Now I just got flashbacks of a player when I was a teenager who used Multi-form, usable as an attack, to turn villains into 1 CP frogs. 

 

Because the GM was a doormat.

 

(Multiform (1 Character Points in the most expensive form) (Instant Change), Ranged (+1/2), Usable As Attack (+1), Grantor can only grant the power to others, Grantor pays the END whenever the power is used, Grantor controls the power totally (15 Active Points)?)

 

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, zslane said:

but if your powered-armor guy isn't getting stripped of that armor now and then (Focus Limitation or not), you're doing something wrong IMO.

 

I was with you right up to this point.  More specifically the (Focus Limitation or not) element.

 

If you meant "if all your players are not stripped of their powers now and then (Focus Limitation or not), you're doing something wrong IMO." then I have more sympathy with the statement, though if it happened too often to me then I might be playing elsewhere...

 

Quote

Players who can't handle the ebbs and flows of the dramatic needs of an RPG campaign (in any system) should probably do something else with their time (or play in a Care Bear group).

 

...even if it had to be in the Care Bear group.

 

:-)

 

Doc

 

[dsatow]

IMHO, if the player takes any limitation that says "I can be caught out of my armor", then a power which takes him out of the armor is perfectly valid.

[zslane]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

If you meant "if all your players are not stripped of their powers now and then (Focus Limitation or not), you're doing something wrong IMO." then I have more sympathy with the statement, though if it happened too often to me then I might be playing elsewhere...

 

Yes, that is the generalized notion I was getting at with the specific example (of the powered armor). And I agree with you about it happening too often, which is why I qualified my position with:

 

Obviously the GM can't do this too often or the players cease to feel as though they have any agency in the game...

[dmjalund]

3 hours ago, DasBroot said:

Because the GM was a doormat.

was that the result of a Multiform usable as Attack as well?

[Ninja-Bear]

Zephrosyne I do appreciate the concept of having a game world working consistently. However there are some legit reasons why there tends to be a kink sink approach to build on the boards. 1) I don’t know what your game world is like. You and I can have consistent mechanic builds/rules in place but they are different. 2) The obvious  power To build to effect are mechanically not supported so you have to approach it from another angle. The book example of permanently blinding someone. Instead of flash, you use Transform. Also using flight -must contact surface for Super Running so you can run across water and up buildings.  3) Personal preference. Some people advocate a certain build because one power they may prefer over another or loathe a certain build.  Or sometimes a person may say - this build is close enough and works well enough that I’ll ok it instead of a more complex but technically more accurate build. Also you’ve probably seen it where where you try to use one power to cover a concept but then that power brings with it its own set of problems. 4) Its fun-until the rules lawyers get involved.

[Ninja-Bear]

Everyone seems to be overlooking that an OIF CAN be attacked in combat to damage it. So Dispel and Tranform are ATTACK powers.  You know -you paid points for.  The remove in one turn is for no powers. Joe schmo can remove Defenders armor out of combat. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Let’s try a different angle with OIF. For those whom are saying you can’t remove Armor through powers then by extension if I have bought the ability of Yhrowing master blast-OIF because I can pick up a rock or can or show them a player couldn’t disarm me in a phase because it’s OIF. Wven though the OIF is defined as object of oppurtunity which makes no sense even by the description of the power itself. 

[bigdamnhero]

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

To be fair, Zephrosyne, did say that he was very pro-active in setting out build rules ahead of a campaign.

Oh absolutely! I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with that approach - just observing that there are other approaches.

[Grailknight]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Let’s try a different angle with OIF. For those whom are saying you can’t remove Armor through powers then by extension if I have bought the ability of Yhrowing master blast-OIF because I can pick up a rock or can or show them a player couldn’t disarm me in a phase because it’s OIF. Wven though the OIF is defined as object of oppurtunity which makes no sense even by the description of the power itself. 

 

That's not a good example though. Objects of opportunity should be Accessible or have Physical Manifestation.

 

I have no objection to you attacking a focus to damage or destroy it, but I still paid the points to keep from being  disarmed. Popping a character out of his  power suit is just a more all encompassing disarm when you get down to it and doesn't apply to Inaccessible foci.

[massey]

10 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

That's not a good example though. Objects of opportunity should be Accessible or have Physical Manifestation.

 

I have no objection to you attacking a focus to damage or destroy it, but I still paid the points to keep from being  disarmed. Popping a character out of his  power suit is just a more all encompassing disarm when you get down to it and doesn't apply to Inaccessible foci.

 

1D6 RKA (standard effect), x2 Penetrating, Autofire x10, only to damage foci, plus levels only to counter autofire penalties.

 

In 5th edition, it's 41 points for the power, +36 more for the +18 OCV to cancel the autofire penalties (assuming you're just using 2 pt levels that can't actually take a limitation).  One shot and you do 10 Body to the focus, that should be enough to wreck most power armor.  77 points assuming it's not bought in a multipower (and assuming it's a -0 lim for the "only to break foci" part).  It's going to be much cheaper if you put it in a multipower and/or talk your GM into letting you cut down the cost of those levels somehow (maybe penalty levels or something).  Or just go with Autofire x5 and only knock out 5 powers per shot.

 

Again, powers should cost according to their utility.  If you've got a perfectly good focus-wrecker slot in your multipower, that gives you a guideline for how much other abilities should cost.

[Grailknight]

5 hours ago, massey said:

 

1D6 RKA (standard effect), x2 Penetrating, Autofire x10, only to damage foci, plus levels only to counter autofire penalties.

 

In 5th edition, it's 41 points for the power, +36 more for the +18 OCV to cancel the autofire penalties (assuming you're just using 2 pt levels that can't actually take a limitation).  One shot and you do 10 Body to the focus, that should be enough to wreck most power armor.  77 points assuming it's not bought in a multipower (and assuming it's a -0 lim for the "only to break foci" part).  It's going to be much cheaper if you put it in a multipower and/or talk your GM into letting you cut down the cost of those levels somehow (maybe penalty levels or something).  Or just go with Autofire x5 and only knock out 5 powers per shot.

 

Again, powers should cost according to their utility.  If you've got a perfectly good focus-wrecker slot in your multipower, that gives you a guideline for how much other abilities should cost.

 

Building an abusive power has always been possible.  Using the possibility of one abusive power as the justification for building another is  ... a questionable  argument.  If your GM allows this power, they'll allow any power.  Let the VPP wars begin.

[Cantriped]

 

22 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Everyone seems to be overlooking that an OIF CAN be attacked in combat to damage it. So Dispel and Tranform are ATTACK powers.  You know -you paid points for.  

I don't think anyone was overlooking that Foci can be damaged by Attack Powers, per say. There are nice, explicit rules for how Foci respond to BODY Damage. Most of the arguments revolve around which Attack power to use, and which ones work on what kinds of Foci how well. For "Teleporting A Target Out Of Their Armor" (preferably in one shot): Transform works fine, but requires the GM assign a Transform value and approve a recovery condition (also being cumulative by default is a bit odd). Teleport works if you make it an Attack Power (by using UAA), but that requires the GM approve a "reasonably common defense" that doesn't break his campaign (good luck with that). Dispel only works if the GM requires that their armor is built differently than the RAW requires/suggests (by using Extra Time to represent how long it takes to equip a suit of armor), or else house rules it. Whichever option the GM approves should be cheaper than simply using a Penetrating RKA to destroy it in one shot

 

22 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

The remove in one turn is for no powers. Joe schmo can remove Defenders armor out of combat. 

I don't think the description for Foci ever actually says anything about how an Inaccessible can be taken away (that is left to be determined by SFX)... However it does explicitly say that an Inaccessible Focus "cannot be Grabbed, Disarmed, or removed while the character is in combat or resisting" (CC 105). So a "reasonably common" defense for UAA Teleport might be "While In Combat Or Resisting". Said entry also only permits an Inaccessible focus to "be taken away from an unresisting target out of combat (or... otherwise be deprived of its use) in 1 Turn" (CC 105). So per RAW, no attempt to take away, or otherwise deprive a character of the use of an inaccessible focus is legal if that character is in combat, resisting, or takes less than 1 Turn. So the aforementioned UAA Teleport should also have at least 1 Turn of Extra Time at well.

[zslane]

I have to believe that the "removed while in combat or resisting" was intended to refer to physical removal by direct contact/struggle with the wearer. Using Teleport UAO is (usually) the instantaneous relocation of matter which pretty much transcends the notion of a physical struggle to wrest control over someone's Focus.

 

So you then have to ask yourself, does that phrase in the RAW intend to also restrict removal of Focii by unconventional means (i.e., by special powers like Teleport UAO)? Personally, I would say no. But each GM will have to decide for themselves.

[Ninja-Bear]

8 minutes ago, Cantriped said:

 

I don't think anyone was overlooking that Foci can be damaged by Attack Powers, per say. There are nice, explicit rules for how Foci respond to BODY Damage. Most of the arguments revolve around which Attack power to use, and which ones work on what kinds of Foci how well. For "Teleporting A Target Out Of Their Armor" (preferably in one shot): Transform works fine, but requires the GM assign a Transform value and approve a recovery condition (also being cumulative by default is a bit odd). Teleport works if you make it an Attack Power (by using UAA), but that requires the GM approve a "reasonably common defense" that doesn't break his campaign (good luck with that). Dispel only works if the GM requires that their armor is built differently than the RAW requires/suggests (by using Extra Time to represent how long it takes to equip a suit of armor), or else house rules it. Whichever option the GM approves should be cheaper than simply using a Penetrating RKA to destroy it in one shot

 

I don't think the description for Foci ever actually says anything about how an Inaccessible can be taken away (that is left to be determined by SFX)... However it does explicitly say that an Inaccessible Focus "cannot be Grabbed, Disarmed, or removed while the character is in combat or resisting" (CC 105). So a "reasonably common" defense for UAA Teleport might be "While In Combat Or Resisting". Said entry also only permits an Inaccessible focus to "be taken away from an unresisting target out of combat (or... otherwise be deprived of its use) in 1 Turn" (CC 105). So per RAW, no attempt to take away, or otherwise deprive a character of the use of an inaccessible focus is legal if that character is in combat, resisting, or takes less than 1 Turn. So the aforementioned UAA Teleport should also have at least 1 Turn of Extra Time at well.

No Cantriped being removed is by NORMAL means just as a Disarm can be attempted by anyone.  Again if you can BREAK an item, you know ARMOR which then would be deprived in combat. If I can Transform you into a statue effectively making you worse than losing Armor then yes by RAW you can do it-it costs points.

[Ninja-Bear]

9 minutes ago, zslane said:

I have to believe that the "removed while in combat or resisting" was intended to refer to physical removal by direct contact/struggle with the wearer. Using Teleport UAO is (usually) the instantaneous relocation of matter which pretty much transcends the notion of a physical struggle to wrest control over someone's Focus.

 

So you then have to ask yourself, does that phrase in the RAW intend to also restrict removal of Focii by unconventional means (i.e., by special powers like Teleport UAO)? Personally, I would say no. But each GM will have to decide for themselves.

I agree. I know some people may not want to hear precedent because it referred to other editions however since fourth you could Dispel armor as a combat spell/ability.

[BoloOfEarth]

On 12/4/2017 at 12:46 PM, massey said:

Defender has OIF power armor.  He saved significant points, with the knowledge that certain things could take his powers away.  I would allow Teleport, Usable Against Others, Indirect, to get him out of his armor.  I'd require Indirect to affect him through his armor (and not just teleport everything together). 

Good point about the Indirect.  The person using Teleport UAA Indirect would also need some penetrative targeting sense to detect and target the person inside the armor, if said armor is all-encompassing.  X-ray vision or something similar. 

[BoloOfEarth]

On 12/2/2017 at 4:35 PM, bigdamnhero said:

Interesting idea, Knightgoblin. And not one that I remember coming up before, so props there.

 

I agree using Teleport UAA for the Power doesn't seem like a good approach, because the only defense against it would be to build the armor with Blocks Teleportation. Among other problems, I dislike "I win unless you took this specific defense" attacks. You see that a lot in the comics & shows, but players hate them. (Justifiably IMO.) I thought about Desolid UAA, but that has the same problems as Teleport UAA. Tunneling UAA is no better, and RAW specifically forbids using Tunneling against vehicles, which IMO goes double for using it against a Foci.

 

Dispel seems like it ought to be the right approach. The defense is Power Def, and the effect roll needed is based on the suit's AP, which is a reasonable proxy for how powerful/advanced the suit is. But 6e1 p195 specifically states that Dispelling one power in a multiple-power Focus does not affect the other powers. So mechanically, Dispelling Defender's Resistant Protection doesn't prevent him from using his weapons array, which really doesn't fit the concept. (Unless he can control the suit remotely, which could be entertaining.) So BTB you'd have to buy it with Variable Effect (+1/2) and Expanded Effect x8 (+3.5) to affect the whole suit, which puts you at 15 AP per 1d6. So the 18 dice you'll need to affect Defender's 60 AP with one shot is  going to run you 270 AP! Maybe instead slap Cumulative on there, so it requires multiple Phases? For 103 AP, you could get 6d6 with Cumulative at +1 Level (+3/4, 72 points max) which means it'll take ~3 rolls to pop the man out of the can. If you're trying to stay within a 60 AP cap or Framework, the best you could do is 3d6 with Cumulative at +2 (+1, 72 AP), but it'll take you ~6 Phases.

 

I don't see Drain working any better. The only advantage is it works as Cumulative by default, but even without that it's going to cost 50 AP per 1d6!

 

Maybe Transform is the way to go after all. I would call "Person in power armor to squishy unarmored person without all their best powers" a Major Transform. Power Def is a defense, which is good. The effect roll is against the target's BODY, but unless they bought a lot of additional BODY for the suit that's normally only going to be the character's base BODY, regardless of how tough/advanced/expensive the suit is. Not crazy about that part myself, but it depends on how you see the sfx working. Defender only has 10 BODY (in the CC writeup anyway), so for 60 AP you could get 6d6 of Major Transform, which means an average roll of 21 will take Defender out of the fight with one shot, not to mention probably revealing his SID to boot. That seems a tad overpowered IMO. Maybe toss on a Limitation stipulating that the armor's BODY (calculated as an Object, not as a Focus) adds to target's effective BODY?

 

(And yes, per the letter of the rules, Transforming the suit from an OIF to an OAF and then hitting it with a TK Grab or something would probably be cheaper; but there's a little too much cheese on that one for my taste.)

 

On 12/3/2017 at 5:11 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

Finally somebody is throwing out hard numbers!

 

Ahem...  I have a feeling of deja vu...  even down to the cumulative Dispel (though with slightly different numbers).

 

On 11/27/2017 at 3:35 PM, BoloOfEarth said:

First off, I'll agree that there's no one power that logically handles this effect, and handles it well.

 

RE: using Teleport Usable as Attack, you need to define "a reasonably common and obvious set of defenses that cancel out the attack."  (6E1:355)  The example of Flight UAA doesn't work if the target has Flight, Desolidification, or Power Defense.  For the Teleport UAA, I'd simply replace Flight with Teleportation as one of the set of defenses.  Though I am of the camp that barring those defenses, allowing a Teleport UAA to be used in this way is a waaaaaay too much bang for the buck.

 

RE:  Transform, I think a Minor Transform is way too cheap; IMO it's at least Major, and one could even make the argument that this is Severe.  While I am usually loathe to use Transform in this manner, it's the simplest and probably the most straightforward way to handle it.  If going this route, I'd say that the way to undo this particular Transform is taking a few Phases to bypass the security which protects his armor from normal outside tampering and then putting it all back on.  That's assuming that he's left alone standing there by his now-empty armor long enough to do so. 

 

RE: using Drain, I don't think this is the right mechanic at all.  Until you've successfully teleported him out of his armor, he should still have full use of it's powers, not progressively reduced use until they're all finally gone.

 

RE: using Dispel vs. powered armor with multiple elements (Resistant Protection, Flight, Life Support, a Mulipower of attacks, etc.) to simulate "breaking" the whole thing in one shot -- and ignoring Cantriped's personal interpretation of the intent of the example and explanatory text -- game-mechanically you can do this with Dispel if you add Variable Effect and Expanded Effect (8+ elements), coming in at a whopping +4 Advantage.  (6E1:142 - while this is under Adjustment Powers, Dispel specifically says it can use these Advantages on 6E1:195)  As GM I'd require a Limitation that it doesn't work against targets who themselves have Teleportation (-1/4).  As I've pointed out elsewhere, a 20d6 Dispel would on average be able to "break" an object with 60-70 AP of each power.  That's 300 AP worth of attack right there, which IMO is a justifiable power level for effectively removing hundreds of points of a character's powers all in one go.  After all, if he's allowed to have a 300 AP power, he could have chosen a 20d6 RKA, most likely vaporizing the target instead, so teleporting him outside the armor is probably the lesser of two evils.

 

To bring it into a lower AP realm, you could go with say 5d6 Dispel, Expanded Effect (all powered armor powers; +4), Cumulative (4x max = 120 points; +1), for 75 AP, with the understanding that one part of the "object" (powered armor) isn't kaput until all are "broken."  (Most likely a -0 Limitation, though one might argue for a -1/4).  The SFX / explanation is the attacker takes multiple Phases to, in effect, hone in on just the person inside the shell until he can finally pop him a meter or two away without bringing along any of the armor itself. Using Defender as an example target, this would on average take 4 Phases.  (If you really want to get anal retentive, you could add a 2m Teleportation UAA linked to and triggered by the Cumulative Dispel.)

 

As a GM, I'd even say that, as with Transform above, the target could get back into his armor (in effect "repairing" his "broken" armor) by taking a few Phases to bypass the security which protects his armor from normal outside tampering and then putting it all on.

 

That's my $0.02 on the matter.