Hugh Neilson

Agreed on finding some middle ground.  That may include "all grenade tosses are created equal".
 
I think we only need to work out size modifiers once, and we could simply set a standard for velocity rather than working that out in play. So there's our DCV, set as part of the trope.
 
As an alternative, perhaps this simply becomes part of the "can be blocked/deflected" element typically included in a grenade. This gets the skill of the grenadier back in, as Block requires beating the grenadier's OCV with your Block roll. The drawback being that a more accurate throw doesn't necessarily make it harder to catch the grenade, just more likely that the grenadier accurately places it.  But if we assume that OCV includes timing the throw, then you have the grenadier's skill incorporated.

Why the focus on Disarm?  You can't Disarm a suit of armor or a magic ring.  If I can summon the weapon back when it's close by, that sounds pretty similar to any other Focus that can't effectively be removed in combat.

The use of OIF came from it being obvious in its usage, but not possible to take away for long.  OK, he's disarmed.  So what? There is no loss of actions to grab a different weapon of opportunity, provided one is readily available.  It doesn't matter what you call it - at one time, Restrainable was "OIF".  A -1/2 limitation is the mechanical result in any case.

As I recall, DC Animated Universe Batman had powered gauntlets used to make him credible in JLA combat.  He's a super-rich gadgeteer.  In the early comic JLA, he would fight in the BatPlane when he fought at all.  But he can't be ineffectual in a significant part of the game, or he's no fun for a player. 
 
 
Combat Luck exists to explain why these types of characters appear never to get hit - and to give Supers who lack bulletproof skin access to resistant defenses.  We know that, in the source media, they get shot at all the time.  We know that, in-game, they will get hit on occasion.  Therefore, there must be a mechanic to bridge the gap if we want the game to accurately reflect the source material.   Most attacks miss, and the rare few that hit are deflected by Combat Luck.
 
 
What is the point of making characters with vasty greater power if Granny's Purse is now a +8d6 Hand Attack added to her 20 STR, with which she strikes at 12 OCV?  Rather, I would suggest that the agents that were at least something of a threat, en masse, to our 450 point Supers are swept away by our Cosmic 1,000 point Supers.  They are no longer a credible threat, at least not directly. Perhaps they can distract the PCs from something else getting done.  Certainly, they can threaten civilians, and there sure are a lot of them.  Direct combat?  The only challenge is not hospitalizing or disabling them.
 
In fact, maybe we keep the Supers at SPD 5-7 and OCV/DCV 9-11, but agents have SPD 2 and CV 3.  "Standard Supers" have SPD 3-4 and CV 5 - 7.  Scaling down the rest of the world makes the PCs much more powerful at even standard point or stat levels.

One of my least favorite devices in computer games is when the world "levels up" with you, so its just as big a threat to you at level 28 as it was at level 2.  You get ridiculous crap like level 100 eagles and wolves in World of Warcraft, because you're level 100 and everything matches your power.  It strips away nearly all sense of power growth and advancement and has very odd effects on the storyline.
 
"why didn't we just send these level 100 elk and porcupines to fight the Legion in the last expansion?  We could have rest easy at level 90 knowing the more powerful fauna of this world could conquer our enemies."

The challenge, as identified above, is what you decide "high end" means.  CV 13 - 18 sounds pretty good, but the OP was tossing around 20 as a baseline.  How does Kiloton stack up if the norm is 20 OCV/20 DCV?
 
The issue is no different than 450 point Supers or 150 point Competent Normals - setting expectations is important. 28d6 will average 98 STUN, which those defenses will leave at about 15 past defenses.  Is that the expected norm?  If we assume he gets hit 5 or 6 times a turn, with those higher SPDs, he'll soak up 75 - 90 STUN per turn.  Should he have enough STUN/REC to last 1 turn or 3?  Similar for END.  Lots of moving parts to consider.
 
 
Scale the rest of the world to match - agents with CVs that might hit, 6-7 SPD and enough DCs and defenses to matter - and these characters will feel no more powerful than 450 point Supers.  How will these power levels scale to the rest of the world around them?  That will set a lot of the game's feel.

Yeah, you're right, I was thinking of multipower.  That's what happens when I move half a house in the heat of summer and then try to think.

Under 6e, it seems reasonable to limit the Multiform and Control cost "only to gain memories and skills of most recently consumed creature".  Add a time limit if you wish.  Assuming total limitations of -1.5, for example. you would have a 20 point pool (which can hold 1 50 AP multiform for a 250 point character, with 1 1/2 limitations reducing the real cost to 20) and a 50 point/2.5 = 20 real point control cost.

I tend to run Heroic groups more than supers, so this one has actually come up several times over the years.
 
What are the official rules on this?
 
I don't know.
 
What is the best way to resolve this?
 
I dont know that, either.
 
What did we do in the past that was reasonable enough in the moment that we just stuck with it from then on?
 
We caught it.
 
A brief explanation:
 
It was decided that a character should not have to be a ninja to have a chance at this, nor should he have to buy a special ability to do it (deflection, reflection, etc).   Why would we decide such a thing?  Because outside of supers, this is a really odd and dangerous thing to practice as far as building skills goes, at least outside of baseball.
 
So we started looking at various maneuvers (everyman maneuvers, figuring catching /blocking / cracking with a bat were not particularly "martial") and eventually decided that Block was the best basis as it was an offensive maneuver ("throw grenade") versus an offensive maneuver ("attack grenade").
 
The grenades "CV" is calculated from its base movement- that is, determine how many hexes it will travels in this segment and use any appropriate DCV modifier a character moving at that speed might receive.   Add in any DCV modifiers a character would recieve for Shrinking to the size most equal to the grenade. 
 
Finally, if the throwing character has any special relevant throwing skills like "baseball pitcher" or something to suggest he has a specific talent at throwing something yet making it challenging to intercept, determine a way to add that as well.  (Typically, I just add relevant skill level: "+2 with throwing grenades," for example, to the CV.  Actual skills-- professional Baseball Pitcher, maybe-- then the player rolls the skill and the amount by which he makes the roll is applied).  This is the CV of the grenade-- the CV against which the deflecting character with his Block maneuver, and not against that of the CV of the throwing character.
 
 
Sounds complex,  but it is pretty simple in practice.  As with the person throwing the grenade, the person attempting to deflect the grenade is allowed relevant skills and skill levels.
 
The blocking character must specify (and pay END for) the amount of STR he wishes to put into his attempt.
 
 
If the Block is successful, then the grenade is deflected from this point of contact. Roll a d3 to determine if the grenade veers left, right, or up-and-over.  The grenade will travel a distance equal to that of having been thrown by 1/2 of the deflecting character's declared STR.
 
If the deflecting character makes his roll by half the target number, roll a d6 for direction (with one result being "up and over" the target hex and the people in it) and the grenade travels a distance equal to the full declared STR throwing distance of the deflecting character.
 
If he makes his roll by 1/4, he may select the 3-hex_face arc he wishes to deflect into, and roll a d3 to setermine the line of travel.  The full declared STR determines the travel distance.
 
If he rolls a 3, the grenade is stamped "return to sender," provided that this target is in range of his declared STR.  Otherwise, it travels as far back towards the throwing character as the declared STR will allow.
 
 
"But this seems to make it so difficult..."
 
Well, first, that stands up to real-world observation.  Honestly, this results in 1 in 200-something grenades being sent back to the user _at a minimum_.  I feel certain that if this ratio was attained real-world, people would just stop using grenades, so it seems dramtically generous.
 
Second, this is an everyman way to do it.  Deflecrion and Reflection are actual game elements that can be purchased if one wishes an easier way to do these things.
 
 
 

4th curtailed the benefits of growth and DI - as I recall, DI was 10 points per level pre-4e.

First, it's an option, not a rule, which adds further justification to a GM limiting its use.  That could go as far as limiting it to computers, vehicles, bases and followers (which need not be identical), although clearly it is also directed at weapons and gadgets.
 
GM permission is invoked again for "unusual equipment".  It could be used for signature gear in a heroic game, but that tends not to come up all that often.
 
 
The proficiency rules are definitely a start.  I find this is seldom enforced for one-off picking up a gadget on the battlefield. It's also only useful for weapons (see below), but resolves the combined attack issue.
 
 
Especially in a Supers game, why does the focus need to be hand-held?  It could be a necklace, a wristband, a ring or what have you.  It need not even be a weapon.  That Ring of Mystical Protection (+10 rPD, rED, Power Defense, Mental Defense and Sight Flash Defense, IIF) seems pretty handy investing 15 points to have 8 and hand them around  to the teammates.  Or consider a Ring of Invisibility.
 
 
For experienced GM's, great. But for the game to attract and retain new blood, it cannot assume every reader is an experienced GM.

4th curtailed the benefits of growth and DI - as I recall, DI was 10 points per level pre-4e.

4th curtailed the benefits of growth and DI - as I recall, DI was 10 points per level pre-4e.

The rule says object.  It doesn't say focus.  As Duke noted, it's absurd to say you can do this with a focus but not with an object NOT defined as a focus, and then by extension, saying you can't do it on innate powers is absurd.
 
The point isn't to push DOING it.  The point is to advocate for re-writing those rules.  Whether it's a focus or not is completely irrelevant to the issue of how extra copies purchased using the 5-point doubling rule can be used, which is the real bone of contention.
 
 

Page 181 opens the 5-point doubling rule section with
 
 
and closes it with
 
 
It mentions Followers, but the Vol 1 discussion of followers already provides for that.
 
However, even if we wish to split hairs into "items that are not foci", we have only shifted the goalposts - why can a character whose SFX involve an object double them but a character with innate powers cannot. 
 
Can Captain America spend 5 points to double his SuperSoldier Serum SFX abilities?  Let's give the Human Torch 32x Cosmic Rays?
 
Of course, the spirit of using the doubling rules to pay 15 points and get the same attack 8 times as a Combined Attack is certainly consistent with RulesLawyering exactly what abilities qualify.  But the bigger question is why should any ability NOT qualify?  Why aren't we following the Hero Principle that mechanics are separate from special effects?

Page 181 opens the 5-point doubling rule section with
 
 
and closes it with
 
 
It mentions Followers, but the Vol 1 discussion of followers already provides for that.
 
However, even if we wish to split hairs into "items that are not foci", we have only shifted the goalposts - why can a character whose SFX involve an object double them but a character with innate powers cannot. 
 
Can Captain America spend 5 points to double his SuperSoldier Serum SFX abilities?  Let's give the Human Torch 32x Cosmic Rays?
 
Of course, the spirit of using the doubling rules to pay 15 points and get the same attack 8 times as a Combined Attack is certainly consistent with RulesLawyering exactly what abilities qualify.  But the bigger question is why should any ability NOT qualify?  Why aren't we following the Hero Principle that mechanics are separate from special effects?

First, it's an option, not a rule, which adds further justification to a GM limiting its use.  That could go as far as limiting it to computers, vehicles, bases and followers (which need not be identical), although clearly it is also directed at weapons and gadgets.
 
GM permission is invoked again for "unusual equipment".  It could be used for signature gear in a heroic game, but that tends not to come up all that often.
 
 
The proficiency rules are definitely a start.  I find this is seldom enforced for one-off picking up a gadget on the battlefield. It's also only useful for weapons (see below), but resolves the combined attack issue.
 
 
Especially in a Supers game, why does the focus need to be hand-held?  It could be a necklace, a wristband, a ring or what have you.  It need not even be a weapon.  That Ring of Mystical Protection (+10 rPD, rED, Power Defense, Mental Defense and Sight Flash Defense, IIF) seems pretty handy investing 15 points to have 8 and hand them around  to the teammates.  Or consider a Ring of Invisibility.
 
 
For experienced GM's, great. But for the game to attract and retain new blood, it cannot assume every reader is an experienced GM.

In fairness, the discussion has fallen even further away from the OP's question of why this is OK for gear/gadgets but not for innate powers.
 
What if the innate power is a gadget, but one so difficult to remove that it is not eligible for a Focus limitation?  "I can Summon these guns to my hands with but a thought, so they are Restrainable, but not a Focus" - can I use the 5 point doubling rule?

Combined attack specifically says it is not a Multiple Attack.  It's a Combined Attack (6e rulebook emphasis). The example is two ranged weapons, but 6e does not indicate that both attacks must be HTH or ranged, only that they must be made against the same target.  The logic remains sound - the duplicate gear will be the same attack type, so consider two knives compared to a sword and a dagger, or two Colt .45s versus a .38 S&W and a derringer.
 
And if combined attack is part of multiple attack,  note that p 181 says the equipment can be used in multiple attacks "and the like".
 
 
To me, this is SFX.  The agent does not catch Grond's hurtling fist with his outstretched hand, stopping it cold. I would describe a block of that nature more as redirection, pivoting and avoiding the blow while setting up for a quick counter-maneuver (which should be "run away" - you aren't going to win OCV vs OCV contests against Grond forever).
 
 
This comes down to the approach taken.  The reasoning and expected use of the doubling rule gets limited discussion.  So we can accept that the +5 doubled gear is a backup and you can't use both at the same time for the same reason you can be immune to extreme heat or cold but still damaged by attacks with those SFX - you didn't pay for the utility, so you don't get that utility - the character simply never dual weilds the duplicate weapons, however logical it may seem for him to do so.  You want them both used at the same time, pay for both Sais without the 5 points to double rule. 
 
Or we accept that you can spend just 5 points to double any focus and they can both be used at the same time.  Even RAW cautions "If the equipment is unusual (such as an Unbreakable Focus, an enchanted item, or the like), the
character should get the GM’s permission to buy it using this rule."  Which seems odd as it's really designed for mundane equipment games where you don't pay points for gear anyway.
 
Or we disallow of the doubling rule entirely (recall it is "GMs Option as introduced) - multiple foci are SFX and may move you down to "inaccessible" as you are harder to disarm.
 
Or we allow the doubling rule for gear and innate powers, with whatever mechanics applying to those as well.
 
It comes down to how you want your game to work.  To me, +5 to get Combined Attack seems cheap, especially when someone with innate powers is denied the same option.  LAZER should shell out 5 points and cut his rifle into 2 pistols!  If everyone used gear, the field would be leveled and everyone would probably be a dual weapon Combined Attacker.
 
 
Moving away from the topic at hand, but this seems like a "clarification" to me.  You made an attack roll to Grab the first agent, and you can follow that by throwing him.  But throwing him at a specific target requires an attack roll, which is a second attack in the phase. I could see the original intent being "grab and throw to the ground or off the cliff is one action" with "Grab and then throw at another opponent, requiring much more precise aim, is two attack actions, the first to Grab and hold, and the second to target a precise throw attacking someone else".
 
Would you also let him Grab one of the agents surrounding him, and immediately spin around to use the Grabbed agent as a Multiple Attack against all the other agents, getting a damage bonus because Agent #1's armor and helmet make him a great club?
 
EDIT: Actually, as I post that, I have the answer.  Sure - that is a Multiple Attack. You want to Grab Agent #1 and Club Agents 2 - 6, so apply the OCV penalties for six attacks, halve your DCV and use your full phase and start rolling.
 
And that also can be used to Grab one agent and Throw him at a second, can't it?

If half the discount was 20 points, them the original power must have cost 80 and then become an OAF to save 40.  It would have been 53 as an OIF ("I have so many backup weapons that you can't really remove them all unless I am helpless").  That's only a 7 point difference.  Of course, if you can fire all 16 all at once that's a bigger issue.
 
A specific 5-point adder to the Focused power ("backup") to have a second gun?   Not so big a deal.  Cap it at one, or charge 5 points for each backup, and define it as "can't be used in tandem".

If half the discount was 20 points, them the original power must have cost 80 and then become an OAF to save 40.  It would have been 53 as an OIF ("I have so many backup weapons that you can't really remove them all unless I am helpless").  That's only a 7 point difference.  Of course, if you can fire all 16 all at once that's a bigger issue.
 
A specific 5-point adder to the Focused power ("backup") to have a second gun?   Not so big a deal.  Cap it at one, or charge 5 points for each backup, and define it as "can't be used in tandem".

Combined attack specifically says it is not a Multiple Attack.  It's a Combined Attack (6e rulebook emphasis). The example is two ranged weapons, but 6e does not indicate that both attacks must be HTH or ranged, only that they must be made against the same target.  The logic remains sound - the duplicate gear will be the same attack type, so consider two knives compared to a sword and a dagger, or two Colt .45s versus a .38 S&W and a derringer.
 
And if combined attack is part of multiple attack,  note that p 181 says the equipment can be used in multiple attacks "and the like".
 
 
To me, this is SFX.  The agent does not catch Grond's hurtling fist with his outstretched hand, stopping it cold. I would describe a block of that nature more as redirection, pivoting and avoiding the blow while setting up for a quick counter-maneuver (which should be "run away" - you aren't going to win OCV vs OCV contests against Grond forever).
 
 
This comes down to the approach taken.  The reasoning and expected use of the doubling rule gets limited discussion.  So we can accept that the +5 doubled gear is a backup and you can't use both at the same time for the same reason you can be immune to extreme heat or cold but still damaged by attacks with those SFX - you didn't pay for the utility, so you don't get that utility - the character simply never dual weilds the duplicate weapons, however logical it may seem for him to do so.  You want them both used at the same time, pay for both Sais without the 5 points to double rule. 
 
Or we accept that you can spend just 5 points to double any focus and they can both be used at the same time.  Even RAW cautions "If the equipment is unusual (such as an Unbreakable Focus, an enchanted item, or the like), the
character should get the GM’s permission to buy it using this rule."  Which seems odd as it's really designed for mundane equipment games where you don't pay points for gear anyway.
 
Or we disallow of the doubling rule entirely (recall it is "GMs Option as introduced) - multiple foci are SFX and may move you down to "inaccessible" as you are harder to disarm.
 
Or we allow the doubling rule for gear and innate powers, with whatever mechanics applying to those as well.
 
It comes down to how you want your game to work.  To me, +5 to get Combined Attack seems cheap, especially when someone with innate powers is denied the same option.  LAZER should shell out 5 points and cut his rifle into 2 pistols!  If everyone used gear, the field would be leveled and everyone would probably be a dual weapon Combined Attacker.
 
 
Moving away from the topic at hand, but this seems like a "clarification" to me.  You made an attack roll to Grab the first agent, and you can follow that by throwing him.  But throwing him at a specific target requires an attack roll, which is a second attack in the phase. I could see the original intent being "grab and throw to the ground or off the cliff is one action" with "Grab and then throw at another opponent, requiring much more precise aim, is two attack actions, the first to Grab and hold, and the second to target a precise throw attacking someone else".
 
Would you also let him Grab one of the agents surrounding him, and immediately spin around to use the Grabbed agent as a Multiple Attack against all the other agents, getting a damage bonus because Agent #1's armor and helmet make him a great club?
 
EDIT: Actually, as I post that, I have the answer.  Sure - that is a Multiple Attack. You want to Grab Agent #1 and Club Agents 2 - 6, so apply the OCV penalties for six attacks, halve your DCV and use your full phase and start rolling.
 
And that also can be used to Grab one agent and Throw him at a second, can't it?

Combined attack specifically says it is not a Multiple Attack.  It's a Combined Attack (6e rulebook emphasis). The example is two ranged weapons, but 6e does not indicate that both attacks must be HTH or ranged, only that they must be made against the same target.  The logic remains sound - the duplicate gear will be the same attack type, so consider two knives compared to a sword and a dagger, or two Colt .45s versus a .38 S&W and a derringer.
 
And if combined attack is part of multiple attack,  note that p 181 says the equipment can be used in multiple attacks "and the like".
 
 
To me, this is SFX.  The agent does not catch Grond's hurtling fist with his outstretched hand, stopping it cold. I would describe a block of that nature more as redirection, pivoting and avoiding the blow while setting up for a quick counter-maneuver (which should be "run away" - you aren't going to win OCV vs OCV contests against Grond forever).
 
 
This comes down to the approach taken.  The reasoning and expected use of the doubling rule gets limited discussion.  So we can accept that the +5 doubled gear is a backup and you can't use both at the same time for the same reason you can be immune to extreme heat or cold but still damaged by attacks with those SFX - you didn't pay for the utility, so you don't get that utility - the character simply never dual weilds the duplicate weapons, however logical it may seem for him to do so.  You want them both used at the same time, pay for both Sais without the 5 points to double rule. 
 
Or we accept that you can spend just 5 points to double any focus and they can both be used at the same time.  Even RAW cautions "If the equipment is unusual (such as an Unbreakable Focus, an enchanted item, or the like), the
character should get the GM’s permission to buy it using this rule."  Which seems odd as it's really designed for mundane equipment games where you don't pay points for gear anyway.
 
Or we disallow of the doubling rule entirely (recall it is "GMs Option as introduced) - multiple foci are SFX and may move you down to "inaccessible" as you are harder to disarm.
 
Or we allow the doubling rule for gear and innate powers, with whatever mechanics applying to those as well.
 
It comes down to how you want your game to work.  To me, +5 to get Combined Attack seems cheap, especially when someone with innate powers is denied the same option.  LAZER should shell out 5 points and cut his rifle into 2 pistols!  If everyone used gear, the field would be leveled and everyone would probably be a dual weapon Combined Attacker.
 
 
Moving away from the topic at hand, but this seems like a "clarification" to me.  You made an attack roll to Grab the first agent, and you can follow that by throwing him.  But throwing him at a specific target requires an attack roll, which is a second attack in the phase. I could see the original intent being "grab and throw to the ground or off the cliff is one action" with "Grab and then throw at another opponent, requiring much more precise aim, is two attack actions, the first to Grab and hold, and the second to target a precise throw attacking someone else".
 
Would you also let him Grab one of the agents surrounding him, and immediately spin around to use the Grabbed agent as a Multiple Attack against all the other agents, getting a damage bonus because Agent #1's armor and helmet make him a great club?
 
EDIT: Actually, as I post that, I have the answer.  Sure - that is a Multiple Attack. You want to Grab Agent #1 and Club Agents 2 - 6, so apply the OCV penalties for six attacks, halve your DCV and use your full phase and start rolling.
 
And that also can be used to Grab one agent and Throw him at a second, can't it?

The terminology has changed over the editions. The 6e terms (discussed starting on V2 p 73) are:
 
Multiple Attack - you can use the same power multiple times, to strike the same opponent more than once and/or to strike multiple opponents. This takes a full phase (Rapid Attack skill reduces it to a half phase), halves the character's DCV and imposes a cumulative -2 penalty for each attack beyond the first. Miss one, and all the subsequent ones miss as well. I would say this grew out of the Multiple Move By, which is early enough edition-wise to be familiar to Duke.  That term still gets used, and the "only once for each time you circle the target" rule is still there in Multiple Attack.
 
Combined Attack - using two or more powers or similar abilities once each against a single target is a Combined Attack, not a Multiple Attack, and takes no penalties. It's a single attack action.  Presentation is bad in 6e - it's on V2 p 74, buried in the middle of Multiple Attack and gets no other discussion.  So if you paid for a Blast and a Drain (in a manner that both are usable at the same time), you could make a Combined Attack against an adjacent opponent Blasting, Draining and (with your STR) Punching that opponent.  You could not use a different combat maneuver (e.g. Trip with your STR while Striking with the Blast and Drain), direct the attacks at different targets or use any of the attacks more than once.  All of those would require Multiple Attack.
 
But if you have a sword and a dagger, two Sais or two Colt .45s, nothing precludes using Combined Attack.  Two-Weapon Fighting does not discuss the possibility of using a Combined Attack, but applies only to offset penalties from Multiple Attack.  Since there are no penalties for a Combined Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting would be irrelevant.  But it would allow Seeker to Block with one Sai and Strike with the other, Strike two different opponents, etc.
 
As each item of "doubled equipment" is "distinct from each other, each with its own identity and use even if they're defined identically in Hero System rules terms", they should be usable as a Combined Attack. If a character with a gun and a knife can shoot and stab one target as a combined attack, why would a character with two guns or two knives not be able to use both against the same target, the same way?

The terminology has changed over the editions. The 6e terms (discussed starting on V2 p 73) are:
 
Multiple Attack - you can use the same power multiple times, to strike the same opponent more than once and/or to strike multiple opponents. This takes a full phase (Rapid Attack skill reduces it to a half phase), halves the character's DCV and imposes a cumulative -2 penalty for each attack beyond the first. Miss one, and all the subsequent ones miss as well. I would say this grew out of the Multiple Move By, which is early enough edition-wise to be familiar to Duke.  That term still gets used, and the "only once for each time you circle the target" rule is still there in Multiple Attack.
 
Combined Attack - using two or more powers or similar abilities once each against a single target is a Combined Attack, not a Multiple Attack, and takes no penalties. It's a single attack action.  Presentation is bad in 6e - it's on V2 p 74, buried in the middle of Multiple Attack and gets no other discussion.  So if you paid for a Blast and a Drain (in a manner that both are usable at the same time), you could make a Combined Attack against an adjacent opponent Blasting, Draining and (with your STR) Punching that opponent.  You could not use a different combat maneuver (e.g. Trip with your STR while Striking with the Blast and Drain), direct the attacks at different targets or use any of the attacks more than once.  All of those would require Multiple Attack.
 
But if you have a sword and a dagger, two Sais or two Colt .45s, nothing precludes using Combined Attack.  Two-Weapon Fighting does not discuss the possibility of using a Combined Attack, but applies only to offset penalties from Multiple Attack.  Since there are no penalties for a Combined Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting would be irrelevant.  But it would allow Seeker to Block with one Sai and Strike with the other, Strike two different opponents, etc.
 
As each item of "doubled equipment" is "distinct from each other, each with its own identity and use even if they're defined identically in Hero System rules terms", they should be usable as a Combined Attack. If a character with a gun and a knife can shoot and stab one target as a combined attack, why would a character with two guns or two knives not be able to use both against the same target, the same way?