Simon

1. Have you installed Java on your system? 2. Assuming yes, where is it installed? (i.e. does the file "C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" actually exist?) 3. What is the output when you run the following at the command line: java -version

ftype | find "jarfile" That command simply looks up the association with jarfiles on your system. It looks like it didn't return anything, which would be the problem -- your system does not have Java properly configured (a common problem under Windows of late) ftype jarfile="C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "%1" %* You need to execute this command.

It seems that there are some rather nasty updates to either Windows itself or Java running under Windows that is removing the file association for .jar files for a number of users. It is not clear at this time why this is happening, but it is preventing people from running HD by double-clicking on the HD6.jar file (or any shortcut they've created). I'll use this thread for troubleshooting this issue with folks -- the fix information in this post will be edited as needed to help out. The following is the most direct way to check and/or set the file association for .jar files under Windows: 1. Open a command prompt (Start -> Run... -> cmd) 2. To check the file association for jar files, enter the following (please post the output of this command in this thread if you are still having problems): ftype | find "jarfile" 3. To reset the file association for jar files, you would enter the following, replacing the path to javaw.exe with the absolute path to the file on your system : ftype jarfile="C:\Program Files\Java\jre7\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "%1" %*

And yet here we are. You asked about errata. You were given a solution. It's not really a concern for me whether or not you want to go with that solution... It is what it is.

The latter.

Typically in the book itself. If you're after corrections, if it's a simple typo, then you know the correction already. If it's an ambiguity or misstatement of a rule, the search function on the forums is a good source. If that doesn't turn anything up, simply ask in either the 6th Edition Rules Questions forum (where Steve Long will answer) or in the Hero System Discussion forum (where everyone else will answer).

So your complaints effectively boil down to a belief that 4E was the "perfect edition" and that people were wrong to add to it, change it, and grow it over the 20+ years since 4E came out. Since no one is telling you that you can't play 4E anymore, your complaint would appear to be that the bulk of the users here (and the company that produces the rules) don't share your opinion. You can: 1. accept that others don't necessarily think the way that you do and live happily ever after playing what you feel to be the perfect ruleset. 2. refuse to accept that others don't think the way that you do and attempt to convince them that their opinions are wrong and yours are correct. You will want to be very careful in how you approach that here. Significantly more so than you have been thus far. 3. accept that others don't think the way that you do and spend some time actually talking about and considering their opinions -- you know...actually learning about why changes were made.

Let's start with the end, shall we? I'm always somewhat mystified at the thought process behind someone new coming in and trying to pick a fight with the moderators of a site. Do you really think that will end well for you? Do you think that you'll look like a hero, standing up to the Powers That Be? In the interests of your own longevity on this site, I would strongly recommend losing the attitude. You'll also want to pay attention to language. Pro tip: if you have to apologize (ask pardon) for your language, you should perform some editing before posting to remove the need for said apology. We'll treat both of these issues as a "verbal warning" this time, since you're new. As for the points that you raise, they don't really seem all that well thought out, honestly. You seem focused on points. The point costs have generally gone up between editions. Rather sharply. At a general level, this provides greater granularity within the system. When your base unit of measurement is a point, if there are only 10 points' difference between an average human's strength and, say, Supe's, each point amounts to a large increase in the individual's strength. If there is a 100 point difference, you have greater granularity and greater ability to fine tune the strength of the character to reflect exactly what you want. Saying that a system is bad because it requires more points (an arbitrary measurement at even a conceptual level) to accomplish/build the same character is like saying that English units of measurement are better than metric because there are fewer tick marks on a ruler. If your gripe is with the change in cost of individual abilities relative to others (in the same edition), you're talking about game balance. You'll find a plethora of threads in these forums discussing exactly that, and debating the merits of the individual changes/adjustments and the overall effect they've had on game balance. At the end of the day, it's a game. Don't like 6E rules? Don't play 6E rules. That's easy. But I'd recommend going back and taking what I said about picking fights around here to heart...

No, it has not (yet).

I think this followup is in two parts... 1. Should an Entangle be considered a Defense Power? Within HD, that's currently the main restricting factor that I show in Impenetrable -- that it applies to Defense Powers. If it's a Defense Power, then there's a fair number of other Modifiers that HD will need to allow... 2. Assuming that the answer to 1 is "partially - the PD/ED aspect should be considered a Defense Power" (note: BIG assumption there...) should the cost/value of Impenetrable apply to the Entangle as a whole or somehow apply to just the PD/ED component of the Entangle?

What'd you just call me?!?

And... Balabanto will no longer be contributing to this thread

For the rat: one way to take the arguments that erupt about something as silly as version differences is that the people arguing (by and large) really care about the system and their version of choice. That's a sign of a good system, IMO. That's not to say I'm going to allow the arguments to continue (at least, not in a way that leads to personal attacks), but it does mean that you're dealing with people that actually care about the system and have come to love their particular version of that system enough that they feel the need to defend it in a public forum. My job is to make sure that any passion they feel about a particular version, rule, character, whatever is directed appropriately. So...sorry about the loss of PaycheckHero from this thread, but hopefully useful discussions will continue.

Let's do things this way: PaycheckHero: stop posting in this thread. Now. You've been warned for one of your posts, but you continue to push the bounds (as well as the buttons of other members). Everyone else: cool it. It's a game. Said game has different versions, each with variations on the same core rules. Debate the merits of various changes all you want, but lay off of each other -- you are all playing the same GAME.

Hyper-Man nailed it -- a Jetpack (or anything else that possesses it's own movement rather than simply aiding a character's existing movement) should be built as a vehicle. This allows you to dictate the max speed, maneuverability, etc. the way you would expect. It also makes the use of said vehicle fall inline with the rest of the system (does the character have a TF with that class of vehicles, etc.)

For MP: and for VPP:

Realizing of course that that's not how zero-phase changes work, correct? You get to change it once in a given phase/action. Zero-phase just means that it can occur at the beginning of your action and does not take up any time/portion of your action.

Please spend some time thinking about the differences between an open-ended rule system like HERO and the deterministic rules engine needed for any game/electronic offering. I suspect that you'll find that it is not possible "mechanically" as you propose.