Hugh Neilson

A lot depends on the characters. Most have choices of attacks. Many can choose attacks which cost more END (or can push - IMC, however, pushing is reserved for truly unusual efforts, and is not used as a standard tactical choice). Theseattacks carry a cost if you use them phase after phase. However, that first Phase 12, I can use a whole REC worth of END and get it all back anyway. Consider a character with a Multi (or VPP) with 75 AP available. Should I use the 10d6 0 END blast, or hit him with the 15d6 full END blast. Or maybe I should use the full END Entangle - he'll lose a phase or two getting out of that! It's another one with potential for abuse that's easily fixed if the potential is realized - just roll the starting phase. The "start on 12" mechanic was originally developed to deal with surprise situations anyway. Before that, everyone started on 1. [Funny...I don't hear anyone complaining about how starting on 12 "punishes" high speed characters because they don't get several moves before the low speed mook can even react. Of course, this is only once in the entire combat, so it doesn't have a pervasive effect.]

OK, first off, I don't agree that this approach is extremely cumbersome. It does add one more thing to keep track of. In games where the DEX count is visible, the players must track this. In games where the GM tracks next move, the GM needs to advise the player when he has recovered his bearings enough that he could abort. That's one more thing to track, but I really don't see it as a huge thing. Your comments do highlight the reason many games do count down DEX, however. A list of characters in DEX/SPD order can be thrown off easily by changes in DEX (or effective DEX). A list of all combatants (let's say 5 PC's and 5 NPC villains) is pretty easy. But that order can change due to: - a character aborting (no action next phase) - DEX (or Speed) drains, transfers, AID's, absorption - "extra time - delayed phase" - using EGO instead of DEX for mental powers - maneuvers like Hurry Just off the top of my head. If the GM tracks everyone's moves, that's twice as much work for the GM. And I have seen a GM with such a scan sheet just about lose his mind to DEX drains. A compromise would be to say "what's the next DEX at which any of you move"? The GM tracks the NPC's. "Delay" is taken to mean "You can move whenever you want, but once someone else starts to move, you can't get the drop on them automatically". So this system does not automatically require DEX to be verbally counted down. This certainly provides some ability for characters to estimate DEX of opponents, but we already have that - if he moves before I could have, his DEX is better than mine. If he moves more often than I could have, his Speed is better. Count his moves in the turn, and that's probably within 1 of his speed. Is it fair based on relative DEX scores? Yes, I would say it is. As tesuji notes, if the higher DEX character chooses to act on his Dex, there is a much longer window during which he is unable to abort than would be the case for for a lower DEX character. Let's assume two characters. Speedy Gonzales ("SG") has DEX 42 (at or above top of the range for standard supers, IMO). Giganto has DEX 11 (agents are faster - many DNPC's are as well). Assume both get an action in Phase 8. CURRENT RULES: If SG atacks at his normal DEX, he will be prohibited from aborting until after the segment ends. In other words, he effectively cannot abort at any time in phase 8 (no one will have a better DEX unless he delayed himself). If Giganto attacks at his normal DEX, he can abort in Phase 9. There might as well be no delay, again unless someone delayed their action - who has an 11 or less DEX? If SG delays until DEX 10, he can act against Giganto, assuming he survived Giganto's move, and Giganto can't abort. But that means he has to forego the advantage of the first move - is the advantage of his DEX. Even if he had EX 1, when Giganto attacks, he could abort to a defensive action or, if he prefers, let Giganto act and then fire on him before Gigantoi can abort. A 42 DEX has lots of other advantages (not the least of which is the inability of Giganto to hit SG, and the ease with which SG can connect with Giganto), but the present system doesn't make "first move" a big one. CHANGED SYSTEM: If SG moves at DEX 42, no change. If he waits for Giganto, then moves, he will not be able to abort until DEX 21 in phase 10. No biggie in this case - Giganto won't be moving again for a while, so abort at DEX 42 or DEX 21 makes no real difference. However, SG is exposed for a brief period of time. If Giganto acts at DEX 11, he can abort at DEX infinity next segment. If he acts at DEX 5, he can't abort until DEX 6 next segment - a bigger delay than SG would suffer. I can see where Giganto has something of an advantage - when would he delay (other than "delay to DEX 1, then Sweep, then abort next segment, which was the original problem - catch is, Giganto is unilikely to pursue this tactic - it's much more useful to the high OCV SG). A potential amendment which may satisfy matters would be to rule that, once you act on any segment, the earliest you can abort is that same DEX in the next segment. So if SG could move in phase 6, and delays to DEX 20, he canot abort until DEX 20 in segment 7 (if he has a phase in 7, he could move at 42, or any time thereafter). Once Giganto takes his move in DEX 11, he would not be able to abort until DEX 11 the following segment. This is, of course, even more tracking. However, your speed/DEX chart already has these dexterities so it may be easier to track. The bottom line is that SG should not be able to delay to the very end of the phase, use a maneuver which imposes significant penalties to offset its advantages, then eliminate any exposure to those penalties so they can't be capitalized on. tesuji has suggested a mechanic which would ensure these penalties remain in effect for some rational period of time, providing a window of opportunity for those penalties to be exploited. Giganto actually provides an opportunity to exploit the rules in this fashion, even if DEX countdowns are not maintained. He's very slow, and he's not overly bright, so won't think to delay. I have only to watch Giganto. When he swings, I can immediately rapid fire, secure in the knowledge that only someone who was also delaying will be able to act in this segment. Next segment, I can abort - I can even say "I'll apply all levels to OCV and rapid fire Scorpia (who I saw move shortly before Giganto) using my delayed phase. As soon as possible after I will abort to Dodge and move all my levels to DCV" Under the rules as they stand, I can abort at DEX 100, next segment. Under the alternate system, I cannot abort until 1/2 my dex (or DEX 10 when I acted) in that next segment, so there is an opportunity for the opposition to take advantage of the fact that Rapid Fire makes me easier to counterattack. This is not to say this added complexity is essential - that depends on whether the "delay/quick abort" tactic is abused. While this takes away a benefit available to extremely high DEX/SPeed combinations, I believe it is a benefit which is neither appropriate nor within the spirit of the game, and have no problem removing that benefit. Of course, if the tactic isn't being abused, that "benefit" does not actually exist, so no problem. I think the better solution would be a timing rule where a character delaying can choose to act immediately after any other action. If not, he delays until something else happens. For example, if I have delayed, and Giganto swings and misses, I have the option of moving now. If I don't, time moves on to the highest dex in the next segment. In other words, the character does not have the ability to divine the precise end of the segment prior to his next phase, and take his delayed action at that time. Unless he moves in response to something happening before the start of his next phase, he has delayed his phase away. I'm probably not to clear on this. Perhaps it is better phrased as "Once you say "delay", your character continues to delay until you say he is doing something." Finally, you note that this proposal breaks the one second segment down into smaller components. That is already the case, however. My DEX 26 character gets to see what the DEX 27+ characters did, and what the results were, before deciding what he will do on his phase. The only way around that wuld be to require every character, at the start of the segment, to state what he will do this segment. This would require Quasar and Keneton to decide what they will do before Quasar can say "Cover me" (and saying "cover me" does take about 1 second, by the way). The actions would then be resolved in DEX order, but you either take the action you committed to or, if it's no longer possible, get no action. The villain you were planning to attack may have been KO'd at DEX 30, but it's to late for you to switch to aiming at someone else in 4 DEX points. That approach, however "realistic", is a major change to the rules, and is also highly inconsistent with the genre. As such, I wuld not implement such a change, at least not in a supers campaign.

Actually, my example is extrapolated from another thread. My players don't play the "delay game", but after reading how Rapid Fire is overpowered because the penalties are avoided by the tactic described above, I was curious how many groups see this happen in play. From the posts I'm reading, either "not many" or the groups where it does happen are too shamed by their blatant metagaming to post.

Why did the other goon wait until the next segment then becomes a very good question, doesn't it? Under the present system, the difference between those two segments "resets" characters to be able to abort, regardless of how long it has been since they last took an action. Is the diference between DEX 0, Phase 6 and DEX 100, Phase 7 really that significant? The proposed "fix" says it is less important, adding a mechanic. One that I would leave out in the interests of simplicity, unless needed to right the "rulesic" abuse summarized previously by tesuji. I would note that the example you provide above is not, at least in my view, an abusive combination of "delay/abort". The situation described is proper use of these choices. To clarify, here's what I would perceive as a more abusive example: It is Phase 2. Keneton goes first and decides to press the master villain. . He strikes the villain, but does not stun him. Later in Phase 2, the villain retaliates against Keneton, with a similar result. At his DEX in Phase 3, Quasar is about to attack the villain, but then sees the villain's ally, Fast Freddy, KO his and Quasar's teammate. He'setty sure Fast Freddy has a high Speed and will get to act agan in Phase 4. He also sees a few goons, and he isn't sure whether they are delaying, or just don't have a phase yet, but he suspects they have a 3 Speed. Quasar delays until the very end of the segment, the (at DEX 0) Rapid Fires the villain, hitting him several times and taking him out of the battle The villains have al moved in segment 3, and the thugs have a 3 speed, so no one else can move. Immediately after this tactic, (DEX 100, Phase 4), Quasar Aborts to a Dodge, cancelling his DCV penalty for Rapid Fire. The key difference is that, in your example, the characters' choices were dependent on what was happening as the character perceived it. In my example, the tactic is driven by knowledge of gaqme mechanics. This does point to another approach to resolving the problem - obscuring the speed and DEX charts. When Quasar's 23 DEX arrives, simply ask him if he wants to take any action. He wishes to delay. He cannot then ask how late in the segment we are - the player must make decisions based on the course of the action. GM: "The thugs haven't moved, nor has Fast Freddy. Do you want to do anything, Quasar?" Q: "No, I'll delay." GM: "Fast Freddy rushes at Keneton." Q: "Wait, I wnat to move at the end of Segment 3!!" GM: "Quasar has no way of measuring when segments begin and end. No one moved, Quasar kept delaying, and Fast Freddy's DEX in Segment 4 came up. Suck it up!" Thisseems like it could be a much more elegant way of dealing with the issue. Simply rule that, if you decide to delay, time moves on to the next person's action, without regard for whether a segment ends and another begins in the interim.

I'd have to work this one around to see the impact it has. I don't see Roll with the Punch as abusive, so I'm inclined to provide it some form of exception. Perhaps that exception might appropriately be for all "abort" actions. If your delayed action could have been aborted to, your ability to abort again is not delayed. On the other hand, you can't abort at 8 DEX on the same segment (when Firewing, who was also delaying, delivers a rapid fire attack at that time). It's not that much of a stretch to increase the time delay to "half your DEX next segment", as you are still righting yourself after rolling with Giganto's punch and are as yet unable to gather your wits to Abort to something else. As taking an action that requires a Delayed Phase forces acting at a reduced DEX, I would be inclined to treat this as the character's normal DEX for purposes of when he may next abort. If he wants to delay beyond half his DEX, then the increased time before an abort is available would apply. [i don't see very many characters with this limitation, but I am using it on a character myself. Mind you, he's "impetuous, impulsive and impatient", so he likely won't be delaying any more than he has to] The system wuld only resrict aborts because that's where the problem arises. As noted elsewhere, waiting until your normal phase still leaves the penalties in place for some period of time.

Sounds like a physical limitation to me. Totally limiting, with frequency based on how often being tied to a specific location is inconvenient.

Is it really that cumbersome? I don't see remembering you can next abort at half your DEX on segment 7 from Dex 12 on Phase 6 until half your DEX on phase 7 significantly more complex than remembering that you aborted at DEX 100 on phase 7 and will therefore not have an action until your DEX on phase 10 (missing your phase 8 action due to the Abort). I agree it adds one more thing you may have to remember. However, I believe it can readily be tracked with whatever system one uses for keeping track of who has, and has not, aborted their next phase, who will lose their next phase recovering from being stunned, etc.. Whether it creates a bigger problem than the original depends on how big a problem the original was creating. If the standrad tactic is "wait until DEX 0.000001 on Phase X, use a maneuver with big penalties, then abort at DEX 1 million next segment avoiding all penalties for that ugly maneuver", then this solution may be well worthwhile. If, on the other hand, this tactic is either not abused in your campaign or does not offend your sense of reasonable use of the rules, there is no problem, and no point adding any complexity. They all do - but yours don't have Analyze! When Villain 1 moves first, we know he has a better DEX than anyone in our group, don't we? If Villain 2 then moves between our DEX 26 and DEX 24 characters, we can readily surmise he has a 25 DEX. If you then ask for a dice off between Villain 3 and our 23 DEX character, his DEX also becomes very easy to determine. Of course, they may have been delaying. But that will confuse the issue the same way whether one counts down or just reads the orders off the combat sheet. [ASIDE: I find people heavily reliant on combat sheets are readily thrown off by adjustment powers which change DEX] I'll toss out my thoughts and Tesuji can tell us what he thinks. Snap shot - I'm not sure why you ask. That's a maneuver on its own. If a character wants to use it on his phase, go ahead. if he delays and then uses it, he may be prevented from aborting until half his DEX next segment, but he's still back behind his cover. Hurry: I would be inclined to let a character desparatelyu wanting to abort before he's otherwise able to use Hurry to add 1d6 to the DEX at which he can abort, at the penalties for Hurry. He's still losing 2 from his DCV to get that acceleration, so it's not without penalty. Since he would opnly be restricted to aborting at half DEX if he delayed the previous segment, he likely did not hurry in that segment.

No, I am disagreeing. I am pointing out what I perceive as a discrepancy in your logic. You say it is genre to be able to delay unil DEX 1 in Segment 6, act, then abort at DEX 100 on segment 7. I question how it can be genre to be able to do this, but NOT be able to delay until DEX 100 on segment 7, then abort at some later time in Segment 7 (say DEX 1). The character has actually waited longer in the second instance than in the first instance, almost a full segment versus virtually no time whatsoever. The only reason the two are treated diffewrently is that, for game purposes, we have differntiated between Segment 6 and Segment 7, and attributed a point where one begins and the other ends.

Slip/Stumble (reduced DCV until next phase) Overreach (target gets OCV bonus against you until next phase) Trip (prone to next phase) Shoot self in foot (here's where Personal Immunity pays off!) Weapon damaged (firearm jams; bowstring breaks; weapon has reduced OCV and/or damage until repaired) Pull a muscle (reduced OCV and/or STR for some period) Hit obstacle/ground HTH - you take damage Damage to environment (set building on fire; damage/break treasure like jewelry, glasswork, potion bottles)

The initial problem being "Because I wait until DEX 1 instead of attacking at my own DEX, I can abort instantaneously to remove all penalties from Rapid Fire and enhance by DCV through a dodgeand/or reallocation of skill levels". It comes down to weighing the drawbacks. In my campaign, the "delay/abort" combination has not been abused, so I am not inclined to change the rules. Why act to prevent an abuse that isn't happening? However, to go back to your example, it seems to me it's very genre that, while the hero's attention is focused on one thing, something else is happenijng. Eg. while the hero is saving people from a burning building (or defending one normal from the master villain's attack), his DNPC is kidnapped (or the villains' henchmen act against someone else). At present, if you delay from your phase in 5 to the villain's phase in 6 (DEC 30), then act to defend the normals, you cannot abort to protect someone from his henchmen at DEX 12. Why would it be any less "genre" that you delay from your phase in 6 to the very end of phase 7, then act, and now cannot abort at DEX 30 on phase 8? The mechanic of breaking time down into discrete segments is necessary to manage game play, but the characters would, IMO, have a tough time differentiating between a millisecond passing between Dex 30 and Dex 29, and a millisecond passing between the very end of segment 6 and the very start or segment 7.

Teamwork is often the bane of sole opponents. Why should a speedster have to fight the group all at once? Give him a "wake" behind him which allows him to pull others along behind him (either fairly limited Usable Against Others, or just a special effect for extra levels and STR with Grab By. Tack on Desolid Usable Against Others and he can vibrate himself and his victim into a deserted warehouse a few blocks away. This enables him to take the group out one at a time (using some of the excellent ideas already presented). "What was that wind?" "Hey - where did Crimson Cat go?" There is a game drawback, however - only one of your players is in the action, so it can get boring for the others. I suppose a speedster/gadgeteer could get around this - here we have a character who can prepare death traps for specific characters beforehand, then dump them in one by one. Even if he is wimpy in straight up combat, the heroes have to escape the deathtraps to get at him - and if he loses, he can just vibrate desolid and take off faster than they can follow.

And the wheel comes full circle (see initial post). I agree with your point - the example problem, actually, was "wait until the end of Dex 1 and Rapid Fire, then abort to Dodge at the start of the next segment. While one could add a lot of fine tuning (eg. depends how long you delayed; depends whether your last action took a full phase, etc.), your solution is straightforward and failry simple, and would force the character to suffer the drawbacks of the maneuver he selected for at least some period of time, regardless of when he decided to use it.

While there is some efficiency, don't forget that the STR from these powers don't grant figured characteristics. Since 10 poiints of STR grants 11 points of figured characteristics, this strips out a ot of the efficiency. Even ignoring the prohibition against growth and DI always on, the character would not stat out point for point anyway, as I would suggest such a character's DI/Growth would need to be Inherent, as well as Persistent, to model the effect. Since Inherent is new to 5e, that's a new cost. I haven't done the math, but I suspect DI/Growth Al ON would likely still be efficient provided you wanted all those abilities )(eg. that you would have bought +10 BOD for your 10 levels Growth character).

The only purposes I've seen described are an attack that leaves no visible signs (murder mystery, anyone?) and the undetectable Cumulative. Actually, even if you pull the doubling, so what? The opponent can't start making breakout rolls until the power has taken effect. So he knows control is gradually building - what does he do about it? It's just included there to be that much more abusive, like that third layer of Penetrating..

Re: Holding Considering most "reacts" are in the nature of "Wait wait - before he attacks, I'll...", a PER roll to see the opponent preparing to act would seem reasonable. Bonuses could be awarded if the character is focussing on that character (eg. "I delay to see what Firewing will do", or "I delay and will block Green Dragon if he attacks me" rather than just "Delay").

I agree that "wait for them to make the first move" is often a viable and reasonable tactic. Take away "I delay to see what happens next", and characters are motivated to shoot first and ask questions later - not exactly four colour. My only issue is the ability to "work" the action system to minimize the effects of penalties for certain actions by taking a delayed action, followed immediately by an "abort" that eliminates the penalties. I've seen it suggested, but haven't seen it impact my games, so I haven't needed to take any steps to mitigate this. But I was wondering what others' experience has been. A similar issue arises with combat starting on phase 12 - may as well spend END since I get a recovery anyway.

While the possibility of TRansform Water into Ice has a certain apeal, I'd say the effect is pretty minor and CE is appropriate. This also avoids the issue of whether "Water is water", so it's minor or "Ice and water are different" so it's not, as well as how many BOD = 1 hex of river.

I agree there's no compelling reason to change, and don't see breakpoints as that big a deal. However, since virtually all skills have an attribute related to them less combat will not eliminate breakpoints. Adding more interaction, for example, and reducing combat, will see a shift from DEX to PRE, but still at the breakpoints. The article provides a good summary of other game systems (ie they all have breakpoints, and not a substantially different number than Hero). The issue is probably more visible in a game that generates characters by points, rather than by die rolls, as the dice don't always cooerate with breakpoint figures. However, the issue will exist in any system where every point doesn't have an equal effect. Getting 13 in every stat but DEX (call that 14), BOD and COM (leave them at 10) costs 33 points (40 to round that Speed up) and provides a breakpoint for all stats. How many 150 point characters spend less than 40 points on stats? And if they don't need INT, for example, for their concept, how many fail to sell back 2 points for the lower breakpoint? Again, I see this as an issue due to breakpoints. Whether it's a problem depends on your view of character stats. Breakpoint building seems accepted by the writers - when's the last time you saw a published character with a 16 DEX? If someone really wants to fix it, there's lots of suggestions here for adding further granularity. Or you could require players to pick their "central" stat point and roll dice in some range. "Oh, you wanted a 13 PRE, so roll d6 + 9 and buy that". For myself, the breakpoints aren't detracting from the game. Let the heroes have stats designed at the breakpoints and save the less efficient numbers for the less fortunate general public - let the blacksmith have a 17, or a 19 STR. The innkeeper can have a 16 DEX. The little advantage of breakpoint min/maxing makes the Heroes just a bit more effective than their peers - which they're supposed to be, right?

That was the point of the thread, wasn't it? "Here's a character construction that fits the letter of the rules but would be denied under the spirit". And this guy readily deals with our duplicates (although it takes a while). Control one, turn him against the rest. Continue until all are dead. Easiest approach is probably control one, have him attack the second, then shut off his mind link and LOS so he loses all those defenses for the counterattack. He might have to suicide them somehow, but get rid of those bonuises and they'll drop pretty easily. Might have to spend some of those points on LS: Immortal to last long enough to take out DupeMan, but he'll survive the experience. By the way, it's not a very effective way to build solw acting poisons. Gradual effect and one big attack, or Uncontrolled Continuous at zero END, would work far better. Most attacks (KA's, EB's) are already cumulative, with no limit to their maximums inflicted. The bigger issue for the guy I posit is who would allow this with three levels of Penetrating. Without PEN, a 5 point investment in mental defense stops him from direcly affecting the target. Actually, with that and some plot devices, it culd make for an interesting scenario - "Villain controls the world; only your team is free; what do you do?"

ORIGINAL SOLUTION (my post): No specific character, but the most obvious answer to me is to arrange for some photographs of this guy's nocturnal activities to make their way to police and press. Can he be charged? Photos may not be adequate evidence, so probably not. But tried and convicted by the press may well be enough to let him suffer as he deserves. [Certainly, many characters may have more extreme reactions, but this seems a viable one for CvK characters.] If photos of his images violate laws, so do his images, which would mean he does have a problem. Now we get to how concerned the PC is of his own legal status. For a character to whom the rule of law is very important, this may not be a viable solution (or may be one where he needs to overcome the limitation for what he perceives as the "greater good"). Such a character is unlikely to simply kill the "offender", and this provides him with another, less extreme aproach. It'snot a "four colour" solution, but, as a lot of posters have noted, this isn't really a four colour situation. If the choices come down to breaching the law in some fashion, or letting this guy continue on his merry way, I would anticipate a lot of characters will see the former as the lesser of two evils. Now, a SMART hero might also obtain legal advice before proceeding!

It is just a "they look the same" issue. Unlike a lot of metagame issues, it doesn't slow the game down or result in unreasonable tactical choices, etc., so I've never seen it as a big deal. The silly thing is, there's not even a game mechanic to make a 19 "better" than a 12. If we're dealing with an intellect contest, say, we each make a stat roll, and they're both 12-.

In practice, it depends on the figured char. If I'm going to buy more ED anyway, that extra point of CON only "costs" one. If I was going to buy more REC, the point of CON becomes free. But this is just a manifestation of the fact that paying 10 CP for CON delivers 10.5 points of figured characteristics/5 CP STR = 5.5 Figured. Hence the prohibition against selling back more than one figured CHAR. No question the 3/8 breakpoint exacerbates the issue, especially since the stats with the breakpoint are the most likely ones to be bought up. CRPG = wrong. In 3.0, the stat enhancement spells grant 2-5 points, but the magic items are all even numbered bonuses. 3.5 took away variability from the enhancement spells, so they add 4. About the only mechanic without stat breakpoints are the % systems that base things on some ,ultiple of a stat, rolled in %. People end up with an odd number as they get +1 to a stat every four levels, but that's about it given a choice.

First FAQ question under "cumulative" indicates that applying IPE at the doubled "effects of the power are also invisible" level renders the victim unaware of the building acumulation. For good measure, I include the +20 effect so he doesn't remember (Telepathy) or thinks it was his own idea (Mind Control). While I don't believe this also applies to damage causing attacks, shouldn't it be possible? He notices nothing wrong until the heart attack kills him.

Apologies in advance - this could be a long one. I'll try to list some options so you can simply advise if one is correct. In a superheroic game, characters pay points for equipment. In a heroic game, they are purchased with money, and you pay for the skills to use them. What about summoned creatures in a heroic game? [Could also apply to Multiforms or duplicates.] For illustration, assume the character wants to Summon a fully armed and armored, mounted knight. How would he deal with equipment? 1. The knight will, whenever summoned, have his equipment. Therefore, the equipment forms part of the character. He must pay points for his equipment but, as he has paid points for the equipment, he need not pay for skills to use it. [This seems most reasonable to me.] 2. The knight has no equipment. Somehow, the player must provide it. [This works balance-wise, but denies a lot of reasonable power concepts.] 3. The knight gets equipment for free (but pays for the skill to use it). [This seems quite unbalanced - who would summon a Gargoyle rather than a Knight in Armor?] 4. Summon the equipment separately. Remember, it has to be mindlessly loyal, like a vehicle would be. [Now we're getting extreme.] 5. You'll need Armor and HKA, Usable By Other, to "create" the equipment. [Also getting extreme.] OR 6. You'll have to wait for the Ultimate Summon - no freebies!! NEXT ITEM: The knight is supposed to be mounted. How should this be handled? 1. Pay +5 points and double the creatures summoned. Make the horse the second creature. The Summon will need an advantage to summon two different creatures, or just handwave it. 2. Pay the Summon points for both horse and mount to summon a mounted knight. 3. The Knight should pay for the horse as a follower (points/5). 4. The Knight should pay for the horse as a follower, but no division by five (ie between Summon and Follower, you can only have one division by 5). 5. Treat the horse as "equipment" using option 2 or 3 for equipment, above. OR 6. As #6, above. Maybe this issue is addressed in the Grimoire? My copy hasn't arrived yet (any suggestions for a DECENT distributor to Western Canada that I can suggest to my local game shop owner??) Thanks Hugh

BOth these come down to Invisible Power Effects. A mental attack has to buy +1/2 to eliminate mental sense group (why it's not -1/4 I don't know, but fair enough). You can also make the effects invisible by doubling the cost, which is what enables making the target unaware he's been struck. Even if he weren't, breakout rolls don't start until the Cumulative power has its effect.