Hugh Neilson

OK, I am looking for the skeptics and those with expertise to refute my hypothesis. I am now looking at Worldometer with the theory that the extent of testing in a country can be gauged by the ratio of critical cases to active cases. The greater the ratio, the less the testing. REASONING: The less testing, the more it is limited to the worst cases. They are getting tested. The milder cases are not. EVIDENCE: My understanding is that the three countries with the highest testing are the UAE (745 active cases; 2 critical), South Korea (3,979 active cases; 55 critical) and Canada (7,866 active cases; 120 critical - less certain this is #3 in testing as the intel came from sources in our gov't, so objectivity is lower). World is 703,547 active cases; 36,205 critical, so just over 5% critical. The big testers are 1.3 - 1.5% (I'm calling UAE an outlier because their numbers are smaller, so more likely to skew from a statistical norm). My recollection is the fatality rate is about 2%. The big testers are probably lower, sadly, because active cases last to the earlier of full recovery or death, and critical cases are the most likely to end early. US is 13% critical. Italy is 5%. Spain is 8.3%.UK, oddly, is 0.55%. That contrasts with almost 8% deaths as a proportion to total cases. THOUGHTS?

OK, this repeated spelling error is driving me crazy. It's "Make America Grate Again!" - and no one is better at that than Trump!

Sadly, that seems to describe more and more politicians in modern times. Clearly, a lot of voters (in a lot of countries) are buying what they are shilling.

I'm on the "essential services" list, and there is no way I have time to pull down my workspace and transport it home. I also rely too much on paper to make that work. I and several colleagues are trying not to get swelled heads. It helps to note that pet food vendors, landfills and toxic waste disposal, and laundromats are all listed before we are Or we could behave like we are on the internet

I can't speak to the other three, as I am sufficiently challenged to keep up with Canada's activity. If you wish to judge my success, you can do an online search for "life in the tax lane" "covid-19". I can tell you that Canada has not sent a single cheque yet. We have very limited details of who will qualify or how the payment will actually be determined, although we have some brief legislation, passed last week in emergency sessions of Parliament and our Senate, with unanimous approval by all parties to get this out fast, and allow for a very small group of representatives to make it happen. It was not a smooth or pretty process, but I credit them with coming together and quite literally working through the night to get this done. From that legislation, we do know there is a "prior year" income test (at least $5k from employment, self-employment, or a few other sources). It allows for 16 weeks' payments, in four week blocks falling between March 15/20 and Oct 3/20. The worker must cease work for a continuous period of at least 14 consecutive days due to COVID-19 (which I assume is set due to the self-isolation recommendations) in that four week block. An employee who quits voluntarily does not qualify. I believe we know which government branch will administer the program. We are still waiting for an application process and anything beyond a political soundbite on how benefits are determined. On Friday, at a press conference, a brave soul told our Finance Minister she needed a "clear answer" to a question (it must have been her first day on that beat...). She gave up after three tries. The question? A worker in a retail cashier position is concerned about her health risks, and therefore ceases employment. Does she qualify because she left her job due to COVID-19, or is she carved out because she left her employment voluntarily? This concludes the educational portion of our broadcast. Sadly, I think we can attribute his position, at least in part, to being better at politicking than most in that field. The character traits of a successful politician often scare me.

I'm not sure where Canada is on this. Parliament convened Tuesday and, after all-night negotiating, passes a 10% of wages; $1,375 per employee and $25,000 per employer maximum" wage subsidy. Yesterday, the Gov't announced a completely undetailed program which will cover "up to 75%" of wages provided the employer maintains all staff and was significantly affected by COVID-19. No easy answers. And remember that, whether they call it a benefit or a loan, it has to be paid for somehow. Practically, the need to repay tomorrow seems preferable to there being no "tomorrow".

Like mine, this requires some creative interpretation, here of the recoverable charges. I am pretty sure that was not intended to mean "well, next turn you can use them all again". I am confident that, if stunned or KOd, you cannot activate another charge. With that in mind, I think you need a single recoverable charge that lasts longer.

A power running from an END reserve, RAW, does not need Persistent to continue to draw on the reserve when the character is KOd. Of course, that can be great, or it can suck when you wake up with no juice left. I'm not sure when AoE surface cropped up. This could make a gun superheated with Heat Vision, or a wall freezing cold (or sticky). It is 6e when a Constant AoE Surface, no range to cover the character's body replaced Damage Shield as a separate advantage. It's not "always on", it's "can't shut off until battery drained", which I would consider pretty much the same limitation. It is not Constant if you just buy 0 END, nor is it quasi-Persistent. But I specifically said "if you find -1/2 stingy", because that is the acid test of the comparability of the costs.

As Massey points out, I am assuming this is one power, and only kicks in if attacked by fire/electricity. Let's consider. First, we have the END reserve. That costs 1 point (4 END, no recovery) only because nothing costs under 1 point. Next, we need some Absorption. 20 BOD (for 20 points) should be plenty. Let's pay +1/4 so the Reserve can get 40 points maximum (so 40/2 x 5 = 100 END), -1/4 for "only fire/electric" (on the basis that, as Massey notes, onlywe will see it all the time). Now we need the Damage Shield. Let's call that an 8 DC attack power, AoE Surface (+1/4), Constant = 70 AP, no range (-1/2), No Conscious Control (-1) = 28 points. I am using the -1 NCC as the character cannot control the power once it is activated by fire/electricity, and must burn through the END reserve. I'm not forcing Persistent as the battery pays the END. So 1 + 20 + 28 = 49 points, pretty rigidly applying RAW. Last 1 phase per 7 BOD absorbed ALTERNATE: 8 DC attack power, AoE Surface (+1/4), 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4) = 100 AP, no range (-1/2), only after hit by fire/lightning for a limited period based on BOD (-1/2) would be 50 points. If you think that -1/2 is overly stingy, the RAW rules are overpriced.

I'm pretty sure there are three left. I'm just not sure what Johnson grabbed.

If more countries make it clear they will not be sending athletes, the IOC may get the message. While a small thing, it is one more media hit on "this is real, take it seriously".

I'm with LL on this. Anyone remember Chaosium's Stormbringer? You rolled for your ethnicity with each nation having its own bonuses and penalties. All were human, except the Melniboneans.

IIRC, you don't get to pay 1/5 the cost for the vehicle, then divide that by 5 again for the Summon. That keeps it under control. And even slavishly loyal Summons have a task limit before the Summon must be refreshed.

I am thinking a Damage Shield operated off of an END reserve which is charged by Absorption from Fire or Electricity. It should receive a -2 limitation for No Conscious Control - it starts automatically, and runs until the reserve is depleted so, while predictable, the character does not control its activation. The reserve starts at 0 and has no recovery.

RAW says So I think it is obvious when his shape changes, but not that he shape-shifted five minutes ago, just as we cannot see whether Giant is always that big unless we see him grow or shrink. I would classify Gar (and he has been Beast Boy and Changeling in his career) as having Distinctive Features: Green, which he cannot Easily Conceal with shapeshifting. 6e tells us Which is pretty much common sense - if turning invisible made you glow and emit a piercing whistle, its cost should be a lot lower. I don't think the average bird viewer is likely to notice anything but extreme "not like a bird" behaviour. Same as Barry Allen or Clark Kent are not obviously superheroes. I remember that issue as well. I think his colour is his Unusual Looks, not any inability to look like the animal he shifted into But pick a green animal if you want to be inconspicuous.

I wonder to what extent we can assess the extent of testing by the "death to recovered" ratios in various countries. It seems like those who have the most severe symptoms (up to critical cases and deaths) are the ones most likely to have been tested, even where testing is not happening more broadly. I did have someone comment the other day that Italy has a demographically older population than most of the rest of Europe. That may explain the higher mortality statistics, at least in part.

While I am definitely not a fan of our PM, I will confess I am impressed at the manner in which all parties have pulled together in recent weeks. There appears to be full recognition that this is not the time to drag our feet, nor to score political points. For the PM personally, he has leveraged the media attention at his wife's contracting COVID-19 into publicly becoming a real example of responsible behaviour in a time of crisis, self-isolating and hosting press conferences from his front lawn.

Late last week, Edmonton announced a plan to use the Edmonton Expo Center as a shelter for COVID-19 victims requiring self-isolation. It will be staffed by health service workers and volunteers from a charity which operates homeless shelters in the city now. Seems like a good idea - it's not like these venues will be hosting a lot of conferences and trade shows any time soon.

OK, I am going to take the other side of this argument. Can you provide me with the rules citation under which this tactic was successful? Not the rule for a druid who can shapechange, nor for whatever combination of feats, spells, traits, racial elements, archetypes or what have you which permitted him to shapechange instantly. The specific rules under which his tactic was determined to automatically sink the pirate ship. Because it seems to me that a Hero character could use his Flight to dive down onto a pirate ship, then Reserve so that, the moment before impact, he activates his Growth and his Density Increase to crash through the ship. The GM would then have to adjudicate the results of that action. Just like a Pathfinder GM would have to adjudicate the results in your example. Would the mammoth, in fact, cannonball through the upper and lower decks and through the hull? Would it do so much damage in its passing that the pirate ship would instantly sink, or would it founder, allowing the pirates a chance to board the enemy ship (which, presumably, they would be in a much bigger hurry to do, with their own ship holed)? Would it really do so in such a controlled manner than no harm was done to the other ship, to which it is close enough to allow the pirates to board, or would a big chunk of pirate ship ram into the PCs' ship? I doubt we will find rules for these possibilities in either Hero or Pathfinder. Please cite the rules in question if I am in error in this regard. I suspect, more likely, that the GM may have decided "that's pretty cool - I will allow it". Or maybe he just let himself get fast-talked by a player with a clever plan and a glib tongue. But that could happen in either game system.

Probably posted before, but this article was quite interesting: https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-interview-larry-brilliant-smallpox-epidemiologist/

1st and 2nd were 64 pages and 80 pages, respectively, including sample characters and a sample combat. I don't see any real difference between learning those two editions. hmmmm...we moved the fall of the year I bought 1e, when I was in . That was definitey 1981. Different Worlds #23 was published August/82 [https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?TID=22079647] and featured an interview with the Champions designers who discussed the changes from 1e to 2e.

Let's assume we allow the character to reduce his own BOD score to 10 for this purpose. Even if we do not use Transform specifically as the mechanic, we can assess a pricing model for "self-transform" much as the Instant Change talent. After all, we would not want someone to Transform into a character with Power Defense and then be told "HAHAHA - now your Transform is useless until you heal back" Let's call it 10 for simplicity. It's minor, and it is just one effect. From RAW, "changing a person’s hair, eye, or skin color". So for 2 END, you can become a blonde, a brunette or a redhead. Normally, it only covers one effect, as well. We can, however, get 5 points' distinctive features or 2 levels of Striking Appearance with a Cosmetic Transform. So if we want to fully change form, that's probably Minor (no other abilities gained or lost), so 35 AP, but we also want Anything, so we need +1 Improved Results Group, bringing us up to 70 AP. And then we Limit back to 35. What do we get? For 7 END and a half phase attack action, you can change to any basically humanoid form. That does not seem unreasonable. Slap on some further costs like 0 END and "reduced time" (call it +1/2 to move from "attack" to "instant", or +1/4 to make it not an attack action, but still a half phase), and we are at 105 AP, 52 RP to effortlessly and instantly change form. True Mystique-style shapeshifting. That 52 point version (no range and self only) is a 10 END attack power to change to a single 350 point alternate form. A 70 point Multiform that costs END only to activate would be 56 points, and not require a phase, so I don't see 52 as out of line. We lose Multiple Forms, but you can buy Improved Results Group. At +1, that's 210 AP, 105 real points and you are spending an attack action and 21 END to change. At +2 (tacking on "zero phase" and "0 END"), it's 315 AP, 157 RP, A 155 point MultiForm would give you over 131,000 forms - that seems pretty close to infinite to me. And you probably would have gone to a VPP, only Multiforms before hitting that level of doublings anyway. I think this one is a clear winner, Chris. Whether it's directly "Transform" or a variant "Transform Self", we get rid of Multiform and ShapeShift. Now, we are broadening the base Transform to allow you to also Transform yourself - but if you wanted to turn yourself into a frog for some reason, that's really not a huge deal. No, you don't get better than -0 for "not self" if the transform would rarely if ever be beneficial - but you DO risk Missile Reflection if you don't shell out for Personal Immunity.

A "complete in a book" game for Supers or Fantasy can be done. They have been done. But it means you get boundaries. It may mean you get preconstructed powers/spells and you don't even get to see the mechanics behind them. Perhaps our game has a "Vampirism" power that allows you to touch a target, and reduce his STUN and BOD, while boosting your own, and a "Siphon STR" power that allows you to reduce a target's STR at standard range. Want a ranged Vampirism power, a Siphon DEX power, a slower recovery rate, or any of a myriad of a number of options? Tough beans - this game has Vampirism and Siphon STR. Want more powers and abilities? Buy the entire system to craft your own, or buy the splatbooks and hope the author also thought that would be a cool addition. Mutants and Masterminds is one example. It has a lot of flexibility, and a lot of abilities, but nowhere near what "Full Hero" affords. Marvel Supers (FASERIP) pretty much created new powers every time it created a new character - but you had to pick from the list.

My feelings are similar, and cut both ways. I don't need or want to know everything there is to know about the other characters unless it fits the gameplay. You can certainly make a game where it fits. At an extreme "Your characters are part of a secret government experiment. Grown in vats, you have grown up and trained extensively together." But it also imposes a responsibility on the players to make characters that are likely to fit in easily (even if there are some rough edges), be prepared to fine-tune concepts to create a decent fit, or be prepared to retire that character to bring in one that will fit, if the first one clearly cannot without an unacceptable compromise to the concept. With great power comes great responsibility. With great power to design your character in isolation comes great responsibility to make that character fit in to the game.

This is an issue in any game on a map. How does the character know he is precisely one half move away from melee distance, or for a range penalty breakpoint? How did the character with the Darkness power know which space to target in order to just catch that enemy on the fringe, while leaving his teammate out of the darkness field? I've toyed with the idea of "no grid" gameplay. You don't get to measure until after you declare your action. Maybe that is "I will move towards LAZER - if I get close enough in a half move, I will punch him, and if not I will do a Move Through". And sometimes the result will be just missing an enemy with an AoE, or just catching a friend. Another result will be people seriously looking at Absolute Range Sense But a third will be slower gameplay as we measure everything or maybe not - how much time gets spent counting out hexes in various possible configurations while making a "split second" decision on a combat action?