Hugh Neilson

I think it's a much greater assumption to assume you get a fully healed facsimile of the character. Although I have seen Summon used in similar fashion to simulate both raising the dead and perpetual reincarnation. But I can see why you feel this is unbalancing - you just keep adding extra benefits to the power. In addition to the ability to fully heal Stumpy (or, presumably, bring him vback from the dead), he's going to be pretty co-operative if he understands his choices are obedience, or I Dispel my summon and back you go! Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional. Again, this covers off a lot of the difference in perceived values - if you allow that the Summoned character will always be fully healed and cannot die and be lost, the ability is worth...exactly as much as summoning a generic character of the same abilities who always arrives in full health. Maybe some bonus based on the benefits of our "specific individual" outside his personal stats (eg. a 1 point summon, +1 advantage = 2, for an Incompetent Normal looks pretty useless until I tell you it's the president's grandson). Perhaps one solution is the EDM/Time Travel writeout. You can summon an exact duplicate of the specific individual (cloned, demon shapechanger, parallel universe, etc.), but the "real thing" is still out there, oblivious to your actions. Summon Grond and beat him - if you can - but the real Grond is still out there.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to quantify a super's superiority over normals? A difference of about 33 DEX points (2x2x2x2x2x2 = 64; 2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 128), so a spectacular difference - need a 41 DEX. Say reaction times reduced to 1% of the base dexterity?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to quantify a super's superiority over normals? The difference between 8 and 23 is 8 times (3 increases of 5 characteristic points each) Figured characteristics generally don't follow the same rules (I'd consider 3.5 PD/ED to be doubled as it offsets 1 more die, 5 points of STR or EB).

The RCMP is basically a national police service. A few provinces have their own provincial services, and most major metropolitan centres have their own, but the RCMP pretty much provides coverage wherever local authorities can't or don't. They also act as a national force, although the segregation between Federal powers and provincial powers isn't as rigid as I understand it to be in the US.

Re: Missing it Weapon Familiarity means you can use the weapon without penalty (ie you are proficient in its use). Weapon element would entitle you to use your HTH martial arts maneuvers with the weapon, so you don't have to buy the maneuvers twice. A martial art has a "default" (normally HTH, but Fencing would be with Swords), and you pay 1 point for each additional weapon element (or for HTH where a weapon is the default). Weapon elements cost the same as the equivalent weapon familiarity, so you can ditch the duplicated maneuvers and pay another 7 for weapon elements. Probably nmot a lot of difference there! Looking at the character: Kudo Player: Roger Val Char Cost 20 STR 10 30 DEX 60 20 CON 20 10 BODY 0 10 INT 0 10 EGO 0 15 PRE 5 You may want to d/w your GM, but this is still pretty open to presence attacks. It's rare to see a "super" with under 20 in this regard. You could buy +10 PRE, only to resist PRE attacks, for 5 points. 10 COM 0 16 PD 0 16 ED 0 6 SPD 20 14 REC 12 40 END 0 30 STUN 0 12" RUN 12 2" SWIM 0 6" LEAP 2 Characteristics Cost: 141 Cost Martial Arts Maneuver 4 Martial Dodge: 1/2 Phase, -- OCV, +5 DCV, Dodge, Affects All Attacks, Abort 4 Martial Strike: 1/2 Phase, +0 OCV, +2 DCV, STR +8d6 Strike 4 Martial Strike: 1/2 Phase, +0 OCV, +2 DCV, Weapon +8 DC Strike 3 Martial Throw: 1/2 Phase, +0 OCV, +1 DCV, STR +6d6 +v/5, Target Falls 4 Nerve Strike: 1/2 Phase, -1 OCV, +1 DCV, 5d6 NND 4 Nerve Strike: 1/2 Phase, -1 OCV, +1 DCV, 5d6 NND 5 Passing Strike: 1/2 Phase, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, STR +6d6 +v/5; FMove 4 Weapon Bind: 1/2 Phase, +1 OCV, +0 DCV, Bind, +40 STR 4 Basic Shot: 1/2 Phase, +0 OCV, +0 DCV, Range +2, Strike, +2 DC 24 +6 HTH Damage Class(es) Martial Arts Cost: 60 As noted above, you can save some points here by using weapon elements. Cost Skill 7 WF: Common Martial Arts Melee Weapons, Common Melee Weapons, Common Missile Weapons, Thrown Chain & Rope Weapons 18 +6 with any three maneuvers or a tight group of attacks Skills Cost: 25 I know someone else already noted this, but the OCV/DCV result here would be too high in most 350 point campaigns (10 OCV 18 DCV w/ 12d6 attack). Cost Talent 24 Combat Luck (12 PD/12 ED) Talents Cost: 24 Total Character Cost: 250 Val Disadvantages 25 Psychological Limitation: Cannot leave a fight in progress (Very Common; Total) 15 Distinctive Features: Fox like features, 3 tails (Not Concealable; Noticed and Recognizable; Detectable By Commonly-Used Senses) Your GM may question "not concealable" as he can Multiform it away, but I'd allow it given the limited choices of when to change, and the obvious limits keeping the base character in combat. 15 Hunted: Other Japanese dieties. He is not supposed to be in the open. 8- (Mo Pow; Harshly Punish) 20 Custom Disadvantage-doesn't understand English. Actually, this should be a physical limitation - I think it's priced appropriately. Basically, something he can do but won't is psychological, and something the character cannot do (which others can) is physical. 10 Psychological Limitation: Will stop in the middle of a fight to drink, loves Sake (Uncommon; Strong) 15 Custom Disadvantage - Cannot use modern weapons Disadvantage Points: 100 Base Points: 150 Experience Required: 0 Total Experience Available: 0 Experience Unspent: 0 [/b]

Of course, you could buy +2 levels w/ Dodge for 6 points.

We already do - it's an Ego Attack, Visible (10 AP; 8 real cost per die). Or its an EB - Based on ECV (10 AP and real cost per die - 2 pts per die extra for lopping off one sense group...)

Let's really point whore this. I want 8d6 AP Double Knockback. I can: Buy +30 STR and make all my STR AP, Double KB (50 pts). Net cost 80 pts. Or I can buy +10 STR and buy 4d6 HA AP, Double KB (30 pts) for a net cost of 40 points. Assuming a Supers campaign, I've also retained the option of taking Normal Characteristic Maxima for 20 points, for a 60 point advantage over buying the advantages on my STR. I can buy +10 STUN, +4 REC and +4 PD and still have 18 (or 38) points left over. If NCM apply automatically, my second option still costs 40 points, but my first would cost an extra 45 points, for a total of 125. Of course, I lose the extra leaping, carrying capacity, etc. but if the attack is all I'm looking for, the HA is a clear winner. Isn't there a rule that says if there are two ways to do something, I'm supposed to pick the expensive one?

But if I was only buying a 30 STR to begin with, I get something for nothing/ Here's the other case in point. If I have AP on all of my strength, do I get AP if I Haymaker or use any other H-T-H attack other than the standard attack? According to the rules, they add straight dice, regardless of advantages. This one's a bit easier to swallow since the maneuvers are pre-defined and available to everyone, although the guy with advantages on his attack powers still gets something of a freebie.

Re: How to quantify a super's superiority over normals? The structure is logarithmic. Every 5 points reflects s doubling of the attribute. Your 23 DEX character is 15 points higher than the 8 average, so he's 8 times better. This is easiest viewed in the STR charts where each 5 points STR doubles lifting capacity.

I hope I have enough points to Summon Answers! The Summon power is a tough one to come to grips with, both philosophically and mechanics-wise. Can you shed some light on these: (a) If I can Summon one being, when is it considered to have departed? Specifically, if it is taken over by another character (say by mind control) is it still my Summoned being, preventing its replacement? The paragraph about forcing a return seems directed at both the Summoner and other characters, so I believe I have to Dispel my own Summon if I want it to leave. ( If I have won the Ego contest, can the being be instructed to leave? Presumably, a friendly one may choose to do so if the task for which it is summoned has ended, and/or its friend tells it to go home. © If I can Summon a specific being, and can Summon multiple individuals (say 8), presumably I need to specify the 8 Summon-able beings. If I choose to summon less than 8, do I select which ones? (d) Assume I summon a specific being, and it is Amicable. I then abuse it terribly. Does the "Amicable" advantage disappear (and/or an "antagonistic" disadvantage come into play), or does the being return, restored to his friendly old self, next time? If its attitude does change, presumably the character has simply lost those points, correct?

"Amicable" eliminates the required ego contest, but doesn't say it is not still possible, I suppose. If you have already roll played your "amicable" summoned SPECIFIC being into a an antagonistic being, guess you're out of luck. If you made him hostile ("antagonistic" - ego roll bonuses), it's even harder to make that ego contest. And your roll is -1 per 10 active points in Summon already, so you better have a good Ego! In addition logically, if a Summoned specific being can become less friendly over time without causing a cost break to the PC, than it should be able to become more friendly to the PC over time without costing the PC additional points. The power write up does not address the issue of the Summoned Being’s attitude changing over time. It would be equally valid to assume that the power “Summon†can also influence the attitudes of the beings summoned so whenever the Specific Being is summoned the power compels him to react to you at the level at which you paid the points regardless of past history. A distinct possibility given its ability to force the summoned being to perform tasks after the Ego contest. Every couple of weeks, you appear in a strange man's house. He orders you to do his domestic chores, and you feel yourself compelled to obey. After the fifth time, are you starting to like him? Either the character will have paid for friendly, or role played his way to a better relationship. He could have role played a better relationship with any character he meets. Which takes us back to getting a KS, that you can keep rolling over and over again until you succeed, which I do not interpret the rules as allowing. In turn my interpretation means that Louie the art expert is not any more limiting than any other art critic. The fact that allowing you to summon Louie the art critic, who may not be any more beneficial than a random generic art critic opens me up to requests to Summon potentially abusive uses of the power means that either I don’t allow Specific Being Summons at all, or I make everyone buy the advantage. Granted this best fits my sense of fair play. You may feel that it is more appropriate for this to be ruled on a case by case basis. Steve apparently felt that the flat application rule with a stop sign best met his sense of fair play So your sense of fair play is "Louie the Art Critic provides neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Consequently, you must pay double if you wish to summon Louie (and Louie alone - if he dies, or becomes mentally unstable, too bad for you!) instead of a generic art critic. As for Steve's sense of fair play, I wonder whether he would enforce that +1 for Louie, or turn to page 70 of FREd and read the discussion of special effects, and consider Louie to be a special effect. "Only if this benefit becomes useful in the game on a frequent basis, or the character tries to exploit it in combat, should the GM consider making him pay points for it." This "uber-rule" seems ignored in your discussion. Since a Summoned being may leave at anytime unless the coerced to stay, I always took the paragraph discussing dispel, or suppress vs. Summoning only applying to other characters, in most cases. The paragraph in question also references “otherwise coerce the being into leavingâ€. This paragraph references "a character", not "a character other than the one who summoned", but this is a good question which I think I'll put on the Rules board. None of this qualifies as defining when the Summon beings no longer qualifies as applying towards the Summoner’s limit for number of beings summoned. The rule also applies to defining how many of the summoned beings that the character has present at one time, it does not address using summon to bring the same being back to the closest available area to contain the being. In the case of summoning a different generic being each time, he would not be able to summon the already existing being, since by definition he can only summon different ones each time, no impact. In the case where he is summoning a specific being, he can keep summoning that being as many times as he wishes to pay the END to do so. Assuming we ignore the specific notation that "Summon should not be used as a cheap form of teleportation, nor as a way to Summon an individual so that the Summoner can kill him". As such, any player who is trying for these construicts, which seem to be your main abuse concern, are clearly outside the rules. This paragraph goes on to reference Summona specific being as something requiring GM permission (two stop signs and an in-text admonition seems to me to indicate that Steve is well aware the power can be abused - are there powers which cannot?). You are simply replacing “ranged†with “triggerâ€. As a GM I would require you to buy a megascaled transdimentional sense of some sort with it to go with it, but you would theoretically need it for the summon too, so I won’t quibble. On the other hand the follower can not choose if you put the power on him, or refuse to use the power if triggered. You are still in complete control of the power and pay the END for it, that is Usable as an Attack, not Usable by Others. (I’m sorry, I just don’t consider Followers inherently “slavishly devotedâ€.) Why can't the follower choose to reject the use of Teleport on him? That's his choice - I made it so when I chose NOT to buy "usable as an attack". The fact it goes off when Triggered is the same as any other Triggered power - no one gets a choice!

Saddam - that's one. Ronnie - gonna have to veto that - he made movies, no one made movies about him (as a politician). Sure, they get the occasional TV show on Biography, but that's not up to the standards of our Action Heroes!

This is the case in a nutshell. The ability to summon a specific police officer gave me no special advantages when Stumpy was in good shape. When he is in less than 100% full condition, I am at a disadvantage. Similarly, if Officer Stumpy is investigated by Internal Affairs and becomes Felon Stumpy, I'm now left with the choice of saying "those were wasted points" or, in summoning him, freeing a felon from prison. The case has been made that my "specific" summon may become friendlier over time. But the terms of my Summon determine how friendly he is. If I want him to get more friendly, I need to pay more points. That's the same way my EB becomes more accurate - I use experience to make it so. Now, if "specific person" permitted me to select the police officer I wish to summon from a pool, then I could elect to summon Stumpy, but to bring Officer Friendly, who has neither been hit by car nor nailed on charges. I can also choose which skills I get to some extent (I can decide whether I want a sharpshooter from tactical or a detective from homocide). However, this requires me to take an advantage to widen my Summon, since it will allow considerable variation in allocation of points (I'd say +1/4 - "any human" being 1/2 and "any being" a +1)

The more appropriate answer should be divide your STR by the advantaged power (eg. double knockback is +3/4, and 25 STR/1.75 = 14.28 - I'd round to 15 - so +3d6.). This is the rule for KA's and movement-based additions, so I'm not sure why it isn't the rule overall. The present system, to me, means "never put a damage advantage on STR, just buy half your desired STR damage as a hand attack with the required advantage(s) and let this rules hole do the rest.

While the Force Wall is up, can you leave the vehicle? If not, all I need to do is create a few reasons for you to leave the vehicle and voila - you have no more defenses for the rest of the day.

But this brings us fuill circle to the original quiestion - I CAN make things slavishly loyal to me, and me alone. If they are not, due to conception (ie whoever gets the keys or hotwires it can take the van), what's the change to the cost? I like the structure posted earlier for vehicles, myself. Nonsentient being summons can use that structure, and sentients the amicable structure. Seems fair.

The RCMP still uses horses in ceremonial displays. The Edmonton police force (separate from the RCMP) has some mounted officers. But a package deal should reflect skills all members of the package have, and I don't believe RCMP basic training includes horseback riding.

Re: question concerning martial strikes Generally, you buy the martial maneuvers once, then purchase weapon elements for 1 point each. "opponent Outclasses him" should be pretty common. Unconsciousness is probably in the middle range - it's certainly going to happen. As for bringing him down to the 250 total points level, see my prior post - he's currently got lots of "overeffectivenesses" that could be trimmed to shave off 100 points.

Realistically, any variation should be minimal, and "none" would be my default as well. This makes "Summon specific person" meaningless unless you've expanded the class - all of the Summoned "specific individuals" should have identical stats. I have no problem with that restriction - you want variety, expand the class. I think the biggest issue between us is our perceptions of two key issues. The first is the abusive uses of the power. If I allow you to build the “Summon: Bob†power, I need a good and clear reason not to allow the “Summon: My Enemy†power, or the “Summon: Person I Want to Rescue†power. This is not quite the same as your telepathy example. In your telepathy example, I’m disallowing the entire power, or a specific type of construct across the board equally. In this case it would be equivalent of telling a player, that they can buy telepathy normally, but they can never use it successfully when I want to run a mystery session. By allowing the construct to exist with the advantage, I’m making the attempts to build the abusive construct more in line with the power they are getting. This is particularly true when the people are putting Summon into a power framework. The ability of “Summon: Specific Being†in a VPP is so great as to make that I may disallow using the VPP to Summon specific individuals. Then again, I’m still stuck with how do I justify allowing it out of the VPP, but not in the VPP. (I just thought of a number of other abuses for Summon: Specific Being that revolve around “is neutral to the character, and the Ego vs. Ego skill roll mechanic.) The "summon my enemy" is as legal (or illegal) as you want to make it. The only issue I have a problem with is whether the + means "one specific person" or "choose a specific person or get a standard version". Like any power, restrictions exist, and even the rules as written suggest some pretty serious limits before "summon: specific person" is allowed. The other issue is similarity to Follower. The primary disadvantages of Summon in comparison to Follower are that you have to pay for the points from Disads, the being can be forced away with an adjustment power, the being starts out only neutral to the character (and presumably will always stay that way until the character adds the amicable advantage). The advantages of Summon over Follower, the summon can be more powerful than the character and maintain the 1/5 ratio for base cost, an EDM and a Teleport of any distance with infinite levels of Armor Piercing that only affects the specific being comes for free (no one has to pay any points for this ability, the fact that it costs the character controlling it END seems irrelevant to me), limitations can be applied to Summon. As far as I’m concerned the down sides of Summoning do not offset the benefits, sufficiently, in comparing it to Follower to allow it to create a follower without increasing the active cost of the power in some way. Followers are presumed loyal (to some extent, at least), where Summon requires the Amicable advantage (up gpes the point cost) or an ego roll. A mistreated follower will leave. A mistreated "generic summon" can just be resummoned, but a "this specific guy only" summon, if mistreated, will presumably remember, so your "amicable" points are lost. As well, to me, the follower always exists and the Summoned being either does not, or does not on this plane of existence. If you are captured, and rendered powerless (common comic book plot device), your follower will come looking for you. Your Summon will not. Most games I've seen assume your follower comes with you (or not) as you see fit, so there is generally no need to Summon him. Until your Summoned creature is "dismissed", he or she cannot be resummoned - you already have your "one creature" limit summoned. I’m not sure which you consider to be twisting the rules. The tactic or my ruling why the tactic will fail? If Captain Kidd is the only person who knows where Captain Kidd buried his treasure, than Summon: Pirates, no matter how many times it is used will never produce Captain Kidd. To put it simply, while there may be some variation between the knowledge the individual pirates possess it will never be meaningful within the game. The uniqueness of always getting a specific being allows for it to be potentially meaningful, and potentially unbalancing. With the potential effect being sufficient that the official rules slap an advantage on the power to be able to summon a single specific being, and the even greater potentially abusive ability to pick and choose specific beings from a group of beings is just not even allowed, period. My example assumes knowledge that anyone with the knowledge skill might possess. Keep asking enough art experts (all with KS: Art), and one will identify your Van Gogh. Yours assumes knowledge only one specific being possesses - you won't get that info unless you get that one specific being. If you are looking for more general knowledge, each "spirit of the dead" will have different gaps in his knowledge. It is like the artificial cap on Healing. Personally, I don’t think Healing needs to have a cap, or at the least should have some way of it being raised. Steve feels that allowing unlimited healing is potentially abusive, and creates an inappropriate feel for gaming. I don’t agree with him, but I can see why he did it. I just in my games blithely ignore him, and go on. This is the first time I’ve ever mentioned my disagreement in this forum, and hopefully, the last. Or an advantage to remove the cap (you can reverse engineer this from Regeneration pretty easily). But the fact we need to assume rules away because reasonable effects are not covered is indicative of a problem in the rules which should be addressed. Primarily, to take advantage of the 1/5 price break, and the fact that Summon is inherently a power. If you can get it so that the “basic†template is built with a large percent of the points spent that you have to account for are put into the skill you can end up with a higher skill roll, than if you had put your own points into the skill. This works best if the GM created such a creature for his own campaign already, or the GM doesn’t pay attention to what they let you build. Ummmmm...pay for Summon a spirit of a dead wizard (desolidification, stats and who knows what else) or pay for a Knowledge Skill with (say) +3 to the roll. Even with no point break because the skill is "really" a power, I pay what, 9 points for the skill (a 45 point deceased wizard that I pay END to summon and have to mind wrestle with to get an answer). The skill is way cheaper. With Duplication, you can not recombine at range without the use of a +1/2 advantage, which would bring the duplicate version up to 175, but you still would be limited in the distance that you could call the duplicate from and the need to be on the same plane of existence. Personally, the extra distance on the recombine would easily be worth an extra +1/2, which would take us back up to the 210 active point level for the Duplication. With summon, I can't make the summoned creature go away without another power, and I don't have to share the Summoned being's damage when I do send him away. Given that the player character would have to be buying these powers, since to mimic Summon that is the person paying the END on them, you would also have to apply the Usable as an Attack Advantage and Ranged on all of them, and either Megascale again for the range or TransDimensional on some of them. I would say that you are getting well over 70 active for your Multipower Reserve, and I’m not going to about the real cost. I’m far more concerned with active costs. I paid the End when I set up the Triggered teleport, so that's done and recovered. I don't need Range since I set the power up to be triggered when I was with my follower. He's not going to object, so I need "usable by others". I don't need any range because he was in range when I used the power (to set up the trigger). Active cost will definitely be high, but the limits bring it right back down again. No the odds of getting the specific person is directly dependent on the size of the group. Let us say that you go with “Summon: Castaway from Gilligan’s Islandâ€. I need advice on farming my odds of getting Mary Anne is 1:6 every time. There were seven castaways. Now, this opens another issue. I can vary the stats on my Summoned creatures with an expanded class (eg. "all canines" - I can select the canine whose stats are most to my liking). Why can't I choose between seven castaways (each with their own fixed stats) for a similar advantage? You and I would both disallow the ability to just Summon an enemy for a beating - it's abusive, whatever the rules say. The issue here is where we're Summoning a specific being with a name, an appearance and maybe the occasional quirk, rather than a generic being, and getting no special advantage. You're willing to boost the cost if it's exceptionally effective, but not to reduce the cost if it isn't?

Not in this century. And most Canadians don't live in igloos either! A standard "police"package deal with police powers limited to Canada would suffice quite nicely, I expect.

By the rules, the maximum number of robots (toasters sounds a little silly so I'll change it) I can have summoned at one time equals my maximum number summoned. I can't just dismiss the old one at will - I have to dispel it, suppress it or persuade it to leave of its own accord (maybe there should be a "return" advantage). So, once Dr. Destroyer takes control of my robot, and assuming I can only summon one, I'm out of luck until it somehow gets eliminated. So I have given up something. I am now attacked by my own "slavishly loyal summoned creature" because he'll follow anyone's orders. I'm worse off than a standard Summon - just because I fail the ego roll doesn't mean I get attacked, and certainly doesn't mean the creature automatically sides with my enemies (or whoever has the control box).

Two weapon fighting is probably legit - the character paid 5 points to have the two foci, so he's entitled to some benefit, and a "natural" powered character can use Sweeps or simlair maneuvers. MPA's, however, is sleay. If you can do that with two guns, why can't FlameBoy achieve the same effect with two hands? Charge him 5 points for the benefit to be equivalent, but a focus should not mean getting a very economical method of making an extra attack. However, summing up my views on the subject: 1. While I think the MPA is technically legal, such attacks specifically need control by the GM (it is mentioned in their description somewhere), and I wouldn't allow them for reasons already stated. I concur with the "this is the same power" interpretation. If you want MPA, buy a second, different weapon (even if it's identical in every way, that's OK, but 5 points doesn't buy a second attack with no penalties). 2. TWF is a minor enough advantage (little "a") that the cost for it seems right to me. TWF isn't that big a deal, and can be simulated by natural powers easily, at similar cost, so no big deal. 3. As just spares, they aren't a problem, and if you have enough of them that it should be an OIF only very expensive Powers will benefit from not just taking the lower Limitation. For a 60 point Power with just OAF, you lose point benefit from just having 4 weapons. And there's no little point taking it for OIF - if they get one hidden device, they probably took all of them. 4. Any Limitation overcome cheaply by having a bunch of the items is no longer a Limitation. We all know what that means. 5. Other uses of the doubling are more correctly modeled in other ways, and these ways also happen to be more expensive and applicable to natural Powers as well as Foci. In addition to being more expensive, the benefits justify the costs, so I agree.

LOVE your example. To me, a subset of this issue is, if there is a cheaper way to do it and a more expensive way to do it, yet you get the same net effect, something must be wrong with the pricing in one of the alternatives.

Re: Re: Pop-Out Armor "Variable Limitation -1" would give the same -/ break on the control cost and provide way more flexibility - I'd allow it too. It's also consistent with the Multipower example - all powers in the Multi have different OAF's, so the Multi itself gets OIF because it's hard to take everything away at once.