Hugh Neilson

Preparation helps a lot: using a computer program like the Hero Combat Manager or even a sheet of paper with the list of people by DEX and Speed makes a huge difference.  Then when combat takes place, you know better who goes when.
 
Classify bad guys by types.  Low level mooks take a set number of hits (of any damage) before they go down (such as 1-3 hits).  They never recover.
Medium level bad guys have stun and body and count like normal, but take no recoveries -- or at least, no recoveries if they go below -10 Stun.
Big boss bad guys act just like PCs, full recoveries etc unless the story requires them to stay down.  Don't encourage PCs to become brutes, beating on a downed enemy just to keep them from popping back up.
 
Use the OCV+11 - 3d6 roll to resolve the DCV hit.  You can even turn it into an x- formula on character sheets: you have a 9 OCV, that means you have a 20- roll, tell me how much you made the roll by.

I believe the advice found at the following URL goes a long way toward making a game smoother and more manageable: http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/HERO5CombatTactics.aspx
 
The most important aspect of it is, of course, for each player to KNOW THE GAME SYSTEM -- which entails not being lazy, and actually reading/learning the rules -- with a special focus on combat maneuvers, use of the speed chart, and the like. If all players know such things, there's less time wasted explaining options.

You may or may not remember this long thread Experiences Teaching People Hero Game System but there are a number of useful ideas in that thread.

One thing I find that really helps is to teach people how to count dice by grouping them in 10s.  There's nothing worse than seeing someone struggle with 10-12 dice by trying to add them up all in their head, 1 at a time
 

They used to have one or two characters which did have the v slots.  I have a couple of heroes and villains which use v slots.  But I have found some GMs have a problem with certain issues raised by it:
If you have your defense, movement, and attack in v slots, more than likely you will have the slots can go extreme (i.e. more points than normally allocated to the slot).  More movement usually doesn't annoy the GM but more defense can be irksome depending how much greater it can be.  And if your attack goes too high, well, this is just "too unbalancing" regardless of how low your defenses and movement have gotten. A GM running a character with lots of v slots has just multiplied what he has to remember on that character during combat.  For experienced GMs, this usually isn't a problem with one or two characters.  But if you have to allocate pools for 6 villains, along with maintaining records of END, STUN, Body, Charges, End pools, Flash rounds, who is delayed, who is stunned is gets a bit daunting.  The fixed multipower is easier to run. Since force field went away, its harder to make an attack, defend, and move variable multipower.  Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a generic Resistant Defense power but in this character design, the extra cost for the resistant and getting it for 0 end doesn't make this build any cheaper nor easier to allocate points.

A Combined Attack is a single attack with multiple powers.
 
A Multiple Attack allows the character to attack more than once - why didn't the first attack end his phase?
 
Oh, and even before 4e, we had Multiple Move Bys - the first attack did not end the character's phase.
 
The first attack action ends the character's phase.  That could be a single attack with one power, a combined attack with multiple powers, a multiple attack with a single power, or even (from the 6e rules)
 


 
 
 
multiple combined attacks (although, as I read it, why can't he make a combined attack against each of Binder and Slick, so he only has to suffer a (3-1) x 2 = -4 OCV penalty on each attack?  Perhaps there is a flaw in the example.  Mind you, if Defender chose combined attacks, each would either hit or miss on one attack roll - here, each Blast and each Flash gets a separate chance to hit.

Not sure what edition you would be issuing that ruling under,   but it is neither 6e nor 5e, both of which allow multiple power attacks as noted by HyperMan, using a single roll to hit.
 
The single roll is a pretty minor issue, though - if you roll a 5 first, a single roll will be preferred, but if that first roll comes up 18, a chance for the other half of the attack to hit would be most welcome.
 
 
This was the crux of the Great Linked Debate - why does a Limitation create an Advantage not otherwise available?
 
From a game balance point of view, I suggest it is ridiculous that someone who spends 180 points to have 3 separate attack powers (60 points each) gets no benefit whatsoever when compared to someone who spends 78 points to have the same three attack powers in a Multipower of fixed slots.  The second character has everything the first one does, plus 102 more points to spend on other abilities - how is that balanced?

He was describing a situation in which three characters all got the exact same discount on the exact same Powers, but differ from one another in how vulnerable they are to drains.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary looks over a house on which neither windows nor plumbing have been installed....

Why do the wings have to shrivel up and go away?  The Drain could simply make them so weak they cannot be used for any purpose, or remove their connection to the brain, so they cannot be directed and hang limp.  They are still there, but the power is Drained.

You are both approaching the same issue from different angles.  I would say ask the player how they envision this working.  I see four options (maybe there are more):
 
1.  I get a limitation that changes nothing in-game - clearly  no limitation
 
2.   Any adjustment targeting the other powers drains this one too, but targeting this one has no effect at all.
 
3.   Any adjustment targeting this power still adjusts all of the other unified powers, but not this one.
 
.4.  It works normally - remove "inherent" advantage
 
Point value for 2 and 3 need to be assessed.  #2 could be a limitation only on the cost of Inherent as it does not affect anything else.

Christoper R Taylor, have you considered building that the way a hydra monster is built? Namely, duplication, cannot recombine. Each head of a hydra can act independently. Although expensive, bought this way, you could have a hero/villain who could attack/grab/throw/whatever/etc at the same time (with the same SPD assumed.)
 
I'll warn you: it's powerful. I tested it on a monster that a superteam met. Very effective. Oh, and no combat penalties adding together either.

The more I think about it the better approach may be to replace Selective with Accurate and 0 End and then use the Multiple Attack rules (the 6e version of Sweep for hth and ranged). That would allow separate attack actions vs a 3DCV +2/# of attacks after the first in a single Phase.

I would consider a custom version of Extra Limbs applied to TK.

That costume looks pretty true to the comics.  Maybe Cheesy, but we complain when the costumes aren't true to the comics too.
 
Besides, he is The Big Red Cheese! 

That costume looks pretty true to the comics.  Maybe Cheesy, but we complain when the costumes aren't true to the comics too.
 
Besides, he is The Big Red Cheese! 

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

I totally agree with this... as I could watch "On your left..." over and over again... and have.
 
My main question is "what is the pill we are being asked to swallow?" What is the Russo bros' intent here, as they are too smart to just handwave it.  It is hard to separate what is being shown on screen from what strongly-invested viewers are seeing on the screen. I'm ok with it, but it is a question I have. Is the perception of Captain America as "Cap!" purposefully unclear... is it just more realistic "some people like him, some don't, some really have no idea who he is?"... or are we supposed to bring our comic book attitudes of "Cap! he's perfect, never wrong, always on the side of right, people who don't listen to him are villains!" to bear?  Is the movie expecting us to bring our preconceived notions, or not (especially since most movie watchers will not have those notions).
 
I find artistic intent really interesting, and wondering whether they expected a certain "reading" of events from the fans, or were just happy to allow for different interpretations, staying true to their internal vision of the movie Cap, and not really caring what any particular audience brings to it. Both of those are important artistic decisions in how character and content are framed for an audience.

The argument is logical and has validity; but I was just happy to see "the real Captain America" finally appear on screen, so I'm willing to suspend my disbelief on that issue. It's far from the biggest pill a movie ever asked me to swallow.

A Multipower with two slots, one for Flight and one for Resistant Defense.

hmmm...how about a Naked UBO Advantage, purchased UAA, so I can force you to grant me your power, and now I get to use it...
 
Indirect, with the point of origin being the target of my UBO UAA, of course...

I think it goes back to 1e, and so does ignoring the rule.  Practically, I think few groups charge END for using a maneuver (as opposed to the power with which the maneuver is used), as the shock of many replies to this thread indicates.
 
I missed p 54, which clearly states the maneuver itself costs 1 END, and any END for STR is paid separately.  P 131 implies that only maneuvers with no STR component cost 1 END.
 
I do not see anything in the rules which removes the 1 END maneuver cost if the underlying attack is brought to 0 END.  It's a reasonable change, but I think it is still a change.
 
 I don't see anything in the actual rules which requires STR be used for a maneuver to function (Q2; too bad for an MA who gets Drained to 2 STR - he can no longer Legsweep since he does not have the ability to use at least 3 STR, yet he can use Trip instead, which was specifically added (it was in the SETAC discussions) to have a non-martial "legsweep" to knock a target down.  I guess a racing car, charging rhinoceros, or speeding superhero does no damage on collision with a passerby, since he used no STR in the Move Through.  Clearly, no one will interpret the Move Through that way, but if the rule is "no damage from a maneuver unless at least 3 STR is used", that is the result.
 
Q7 seems like it is mitigated by Q1's exception for 0 END powers.  If we take that one step further, having all STR at 0 END (or maybe all STR and movement, given Dodge relies more on movement than STR, and some SFX of Block would as well) should allow all maneuvers to be used at no END cost.
 
But I agree with GA's premise.  Few, if any, use this rule.  It does not properly mesh with many other aspects of the system.  Its absence has not caused any noted balance problems.  Simply removing the "using a maneuver costs 1 END" rule would solve all of the problems, and we'd lose nothing of real value in the process.

I think it goes back to 1e, and so does ignoring the rule.  Practically, I think few groups charge END for using a maneuver (as opposed to the power with which the maneuver is used), as the shock of many replies to this thread indicates.
 
I missed p 54, which clearly states the maneuver itself costs 1 END, and any END for STR is paid separately.  P 131 implies that only maneuvers with no STR component cost 1 END.
 
I do not see anything in the rules which removes the 1 END maneuver cost if the underlying attack is brought to 0 END.  It's a reasonable change, but I think it is still a change.
 
 I don't see anything in the actual rules which requires STR be used for a maneuver to function (Q2; too bad for an MA who gets Drained to 2 STR - he can no longer Legsweep since he does not have the ability to use at least 3 STR, yet he can use Trip instead, which was specifically added (it was in the SETAC discussions) to have a non-martial "legsweep" to knock a target down.  I guess a racing car, charging rhinoceros, or speeding superhero does no damage on collision with a passerby, since he used no STR in the Move Through.  Clearly, no one will interpret the Move Through that way, but if the rule is "no damage from a maneuver unless at least 3 STR is used", that is the result.
 
Q7 seems like it is mitigated by Q1's exception for 0 END powers.  If we take that one step further, having all STR at 0 END (or maybe all STR and movement, given Dodge relies more on movement than STR, and some SFX of Block would as well) should allow all maneuvers to be used at no END cost.
 
But I agree with GA's premise.  Few, if any, use this rule.  It does not properly mesh with many other aspects of the system.  Its absence has not caused any noted balance problems.  Simply removing the "using a maneuver costs 1 END" rule would solve all of the problems, and we'd lose nothing of real value in the process.