Hugh Neilson

Associated Press has called Pennsylvania, and the election, for Biden.
 
Let The Recounts and Challenges Commence!

“It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another. -- Malcolm Reynolds”
 
Personally, I'm sure that Lincoln (along with every single other human what came cryin' into the world) had his accomplishments, his mistakes, his merits, and his flaws.  He was neither angel nor demon, just human.

And he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Anyone want to propose a greater single impact on civil rights then ending the legal practice of slavery? Love to hear it.
 
 You can say “yeah but” or “if only he’d” but he arguably did more for that cause than any American before or since with that action.

Looking at each in turn, Summon is an Instant power.  Fire and forget.  The summoned creature can stick around or leave at its discretion (subject to the EGO roll contest).  The use of Summon only brings the creature to the character's location, so there is no ongoing maintenance required, the same as an Entangle or a Barrier.
 
Power durations are discussed at 6e Vol 1 p 127.  The discussion of Instant notes that these powers often have lingering effects after the power is used.  The damage inflicted by a blast, the entangle and, by extension, the Summoned entities don't vanish if the power itself vanishes.
 
Duplication is Persistent.  If you don't keep the points available, it stops working and the duplicates logically vanish.  That's an issue, though, as recombination normally requires a full phase and is done at no range. 
 
However, Duplication is a Special Power, which means that, by RAW, it cannot be placed in any power framework ("requires GM permission" to me is no different from "the GM can waive the rules").  The decision to allow a deviation from that rule comes with the need to assess how the power will work when included in a framework.  Maybe the points are "locked in" until the duplicates are recombined under the normal rules. 
 
Of course, the character has to spend a half phase to Duplicate (more, or have an advantage, to get more than one duplicate).  The duplicate needs the rest of that segment to orient itself.  Next phase, it could move away, but avoiding being at half DCV and using a full phase to recombine is a big benefit if they can just switch the MP points out, over and above recombining at range.  Perhaps one condition on GM permission to have this Special Power  in a framework is spending 10 points on the Easy Recombination added, and paying for the +1/2 Ranged Recombination advantage.  So a 60 point MP could have a 150 point Duplicate (30 base points) +10 Adder (Easy Recombination) = 40 x 1.5 (Ranged Recombination) = 60 points.  Remember that the duplicates also have to have the full Duplication power of the original "unless the GM permits otherwise".
 
Duplicating a 400 point character on this basis would cost 80 + 10 = 90 x 1.5 = 135, which would need a pretty big Multipower!
 
 

Decades later, I recall the scenario where Firewing showed up (and served mainly as a distraction).  As the team gathered their thoughts, the "Overconfident" character bellowed out "Hey FlameBrain - you and me, one on one - or are you CHICKEN?"
 
Turn 1, Phase 12, Firewing's action - the player throws his dice and says "I made my EGO roll by 3 - can I overcome my Overconfidence enough to abort to Dodge?"  He dodged.  Firewing missed.  He lasted another half a turn after PS 12.  The rest of the team had caught up with the real villains of the session.
 
How many gamers would ASK whether they are allowed to abort to Dodge, much less make an Ego roll before even considering whether their Overconfidence would allow it?  The rest of the team accomplished the scenario's objectives (which no one recalls what they were now) just in time to see Firewing take out their teammate.  "He fought with honour and valour.  Unlike most on this world."  Firewing departed.

I had a lengthy response but will just say, I cannot accept the use of modern standards for behavior applied retroactively to Abraham Lincoln. That strikes me as a revisionist standard that no human being of any era would withstand the scrutiny of. Particularly any human being in a leadership role. But really anyone.
 
 Anyway, carry on. I will continue to consider him one of the few truly great Presidents and a champion of his time for human liberty. Errors and all.

I wouldn't allow Haymaker against a physical Entangle either.  I don't think an escape attempt is a type of Strike maneuver; I think it's an application of STR (or EGO, in the case of a mental Entangle).  Again, the right SFX might sway me, but in general, in my brain, I think most reasons someone might say they should be able to Haymaker are actually just rationales for why it makes sense for them to Push their STR/EGO.

A valid position.  However, if one can gather all of one's mental energy in order to strike harder with a mental blast - or a mental entangle - using a Haymaker, why can't one gather all of one's mental energy in order to break free from a mental entangle, on the same basis one can gather all one's physical might to Haymaker an escape attempt from a physical entangle?  What is the mental escape, if not a mental Strike maneuver against the Entangle?
 
Now, under RAW, a Haymaker cannot be made when the drawbacks of extra time and reduced DCV are not relevant.  It could be argued that, when entangled with 0 DCV, reduced DCV is irrelevant.  But that would suggest Haymaker cannot be used to escape any entangle.  Whether the "situational Haymaker" rule is appropriate or not is a completely separate question, and I suggest one not germane to this discussion, other than "if you can Haymaker to escape a -physical Entangle, why not the same for escaping a mental Entangle?"

I'd say Beast Boy is effective enough that he's not using standard animals as their defenses won't hold up in Supers games, but it would be easy to say "the standard animal plus these extra defenses (perhaps Combat Luck)" or any other modification you want.

I'd say Beast Boy is effective enough that he's not using standard animals as their defenses won't hold up in Supers games, but it would be easy to say "the standard animal plus these extra defenses (perhaps Combat Luck)" or any other modification you want.

I'd say Beast Boy is effective enough that he's not using standard animals as their defenses won't hold up in Supers games, but it would be easy to say "the standard animal plus these extra defenses (perhaps Combat Luck)" or any other modification you want.

Back in the "what should change for 6e" days, I suggested unbundling Charges so they would have a higher limitation but cost END by default.
 
"But that would be unrealistic - guns would cost END for their bullets without an extra advantage!" won that battle.
 
Well, it would sure work well for Wizards who can cast spells a certain number of times per day, and it is tiring to cast them.  Or for an archer who has a limited quiver, and has to draw the bow.  But intuitive firearms were more important.  I blame the Harbinger of Justice!
 
 

but...but...but...
 
MAGIC!
 
 

I think 6eV1P366 third paragraph."You can also apply this effect to Advantages, Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power." is a far cry from "It is fully within RAW to apply a partial limitation to the control cost of a VPP", and my hunt for any further commenary (fully detailed in the thread in the HD forum) didn't find any clarification.
 
I'd interpret RAW to allow it, but that's not the only reasonable interpretation of RAW.  Even if it were, no GM has to allow it, and if Simon's interpretation is right, no GM is prevented from allowing it anyway.
 
Sounds like a negative adder is another option for popping the desired ability into HD at the same price as two VPPs, one limited and the other not.

I'll admit I found the discussions related to Power Frameworks tough to parse through (as seen above).  There are two, so if they are not treated the same, there's little point having a general discussion.  "You can also apply this effect to Advantages, Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power. " does not answer the question of how it would be applied to a Power Framework.Simply being able to have partially limited powers as slots is applying the effect to a Power Framework.
 
You can get the same point cost (maybe out a bit for rounding) using Simon's "two 38 point VPPs" or my "one  50 and one 25 point VPP" model as you'll get with a single 75 point VPP and a partially limited control cost.  And your GM may allow any of the three, disallow all three or modify the pricing.  Whether book-legal, GM permission legal or only legal by GM override, some GMs will allow it in the specific game and others will not.  If they do, it costs the same and plays the same.
 
I asked whether this can be done in HD, and if so how.  Simon answered that HD does not allow it as I described, because it's at best a questionable interpretation of  some pretty uncertain reading in the rules.  He provided a mechanism for getting the construct in HD at the same point costs.  He answered all the questions.
 
Whether you agree with his rules interpretation (and disallow the construct entirely) or disagree (and put it in HD as he set out), it will work exactly the same way in play.  Many GMs don't allow VPPs at all, period.
 
As I don't use HD, I don't often visit this Board, so maybe I misinterpret its purpose.  However, as I understand it, this Board is not about interpreting RAW, or whether any given GM would allow a "GM permission" or "GM override" build, it's about how to get HD to build what you want it to build.  That question is answered, by the SW designer who is also very savvy with the rules.
 
Thanks for both that answer and your reasoning behind it, Simon.

VPPs are often/frequently handled differently from other Power Frameworks, and there are multiple statements in the rules on VPPs that can be interpreted to indicate that Partially Limiting the VPP itself is not something that should be done (game balance, yadda yadda). There's a reason VPPs have a stop sign.
 
But it's moot.
 
If you want to allow a Partially Limited VPP you build it in HD the EXACT SAME WAY you would build any other Partially Limited Power.

Again, make two VPPs as described above - no different from any other Partially Limited Power, assuming your GM allows it.

Practically:
 
 - you can build a multiform with massive doub;lings of forms, or a VPP of Multiforms, and have a sheet for each form, adding new ones at your discretion.
 
 - you can have a Multipower and put a configuration of multipower slots together for various standard forms, adding new ones at your discretion.
 
 - you could even have a VPP of animal powers and put a configuration of multipower slots together for various standard forms, adding new powers and new configurations at your discretion (wait - I need an NND vs Smell Flash Defense for my skunk).
 
All three require advance preparation to avoid slowing down the game.

And people say they have not replicated the comic book experience!

I dislike "gliding only" equating to "gliding faster".  CC appears to remove the GM discretion present in 6e, which I support.  I'd prefer that the system remove the doubled Gide speed (likely meaning  a larger limitation for "only to glide") and provide a limitation for "cannot glide" (probably -1/4).

I dislike "gliding only" equating to "gliding faster".  CC appears to remove the GM discretion present in 6e, which I support.  I'd prefer that the system remove the doubled Gide speed (likely meaning  a larger limitation for "only to glide") and provide a limitation for "cannot glide" (probably -1/4).

What you're missing:  the pool size is REAL cost.  So 50 active becomes 25 real because it's OAF.  You don't reduce the pool *cost*, you get to reduce the pool *size*.  That's why, with the staff, it's 75 real, 100 control, and the staff limitation kicks in at 50/50.  So, any time the control cost exceeds 50...the staff's in play.  Any time the *total* real costs exceed 50, the staff has to be involved.  That's not on one power, that's on all powers in use.  You couldn't have 30 points of defenses and 30 points of Flight w/o the staff because the pool size without it is only 50/50.
 
I love building VPPs that are, let's say, 120/60, with Requires a Skill Roll as a common modifier.  It means the maximum real cost is never over 40, so I can have 3 full-strength powers up and ready simultaneously.  Or make it, let's say, 100/60...60 attack, 60 defense, and 30 special-purpose (e.g. invis) or mid-level movement (flight 24m, 1/2 END) that I can transition to non-combat movement readily enough.  I don't typically need an attack power at non-combat speed.

I'm trying to parse this through the rules.  My gut feel was that it's legal,but I had not dug through it.
 
I'll put my conclusion up here, and show my work below, as I parsed through the book.
 
I'm none the wiser as to whether a partially limited control cost is OK by RAW, "with special GM permission" or "no way".  I am pretty confident it can be read in any of the three ways, and if you read it as "no way", then the answer "Hero Designer does not allow this" makes perfect sense to me.
 
If I wanted such a construct in HD, nothing stops me writing in a 38 (or 50) point VPP with 50 control cost, a 37 (or 25) point VPP with 50 Control Cost, OAF Limitation, and running the character as being able to create up to 50 real points of 50 AP powers lacking the OAF, or up to 75 real points of powers with any AP over 50 subject to the OAF.  The pricing would be the same as the "partially limited" construct.
 
Well, nothing in HD stops me and the pricing would be unchanged - my GM's ruling could certainly stop me or change the pricing, but that applies to everything.
 
RESEARCH FOLLOWS:
 
From 6eV1p366, on Partially-Limited Powers, "You can also apply this effect to Advantages,Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power."  However, the only example is an advantage, so VPPs are not specifically discussed.
 
From 6eV1p401, "A character can have a partially-Limited power in a Power Framework slot, unless the GM objects for some reason. He cannot partly Limit a  framework’s reserve or base cost, however."
 
Page 406 goes on to note "A character may not partially Limit a Multipower reserve unless the GM permits him to. However, he may have a partially-Limited power
as a slot in a Multipower."  That's not covering the VPP, though. 
 
The term "partially limited" does not appear in the VPP section.
 
We know the pool cost can never be modified (p 409). 
 
I can definitely see a read of P 410 that the control cost cannot be partially limited.  It does not explicitly prohibit, but neither does it explicitly permit, this.
 
Coming back to p 401, the term "base cost" is challenging me.  The glossary defines this as referring to "a Characteristic, Skill, or Power at its lowest or most primary level, without any additional modifiers, bonuses, Adders, Advantages, and so forth. For example, “base DEX Roll” means the DEX Roll calculated as (9 + (DEX/5)), without adding any bonuses from Skill Levels or other sources."  "Cost" is undefined.  Given the MP requires special permission to partially limit the reserve or pool, it seems like this at least impacts the pool, but there are no limitations on the VPP pool anyway.  I could see interpreting this to include the control cost, except that it seems not to apply to the slot cost in a MP.
 
The term "base cost" shows up again as the "no advantages or limitations" cost of a power in the term "real cost", a skill (p 61), a few references in Powers, Advantages (none helpful in this context).
 
P 399 notes that you cannot "Link a power or Power Framework to the reserve or base cost of a Power Framework."  I can read this as there being two separate elements, or as "reserve" being synonymous with "base cost".  The same "reserve or base cost" prohibits a partially-advantaged "reserve or base cost" (p 400), but "If a character applies Autofire to the reserve or base cost of a Power Framework, he cannot make an attack involving shots from two or more slots — he can only use the Autofire for only one slot at a time."
 
p 402 notes that "No power in a Multipower can have an Active Point cost greater than the base cost of the Multipower reserve — the amount of Character Points
spent on the reserve before any Advantages or Limitations are applied."  That's no too helpful as the multipower mechanics differ from the VPP pretty substantially, so whether that "base cost" is the "pool" or "control cost" aspect of the MP is less than clear.
 
The term is not used at all in a VPP.
 
At this point, I stopped and concluded above.
 
 
 
 
 
 

HYPOTHESIS: that a Superhero team movie can only succeed with reasonable run time if we already know who most, if not all, of the main characters are from prior movies.
 
EXPERIMENT: Guardians of the Galaxy
 
RESULT:  Hypothesis fails.
 
The Avengers flowed from prior solo movies and it succeeded.  That does not mean prior solo movies are an essential component of a team movie succeeding, any more than it means that only comic book teams made up of heroes with their own previously established features (Justice Society, Justice League, current comic book Guardians of the Galaxy) are doomed to failure.  "The team introduced as a team" has also enjoyed success (Fantastic Four, Doom Patrol, X-Men, original Guardians of the Galaxy).

HYPOTHESIS: that a Superhero team movie can only succeed with reasonable run time if we already know who most, if not all, of the main characters are from prior movies.
 
EXPERIMENT: Guardians of the Galaxy
 
RESULT:  Hypothesis fails.
 
The Avengers flowed from prior solo movies and it succeeded.  That does not mean prior solo movies are an essential component of a team movie succeeding, any more than it means that only comic book teams made up of heroes with their own previously established features (Justice Society, Justice League, current comic book Guardians of the Galaxy) are doomed to failure.  "The team introduced as a team" has also enjoyed success (Fantastic Four, Doom Patrol, X-Men, original Guardians of the Galaxy).