Hugh Neilson

Well...we enjoyed Shang Chi and Eternals too. "shrugs"

I never intended to ever post but this needed comment.
 
I am so depressed about folk commenting on science like it is a debate.  I would like to point out that, at least once, the post came with commentary, and the commentary is indeed disinformation.
 
The headline, cursory look at numbers may show that the more shots you have improve your chances of getting the virus and don't stop transmission.  Any level of scientific understanding in the field would tell you both those statements are nonsense.
 
A vaccine almost never blocks transmission, what happens us that people do not get as sick, those infected are infected for less time, the virus is less virulent, and they produce less virus particles.  All of that reduces the risk of severe illness and transmission, all working to reduce the R number so that, eventually the level of virus in the environment us reduced to minimal levels and outbreaks tens not to spread to even epidemic levels.
 
Vaccines don't prevent illness, they do tend to prevent deaths and mass illness.
 
The strapline to a lot of this stuff is that we need to learn to live with Covid.  That the longer we go the milder the virus will become.  Again, scientific understanding in the field tells you that both those statements are nonsense.
 
It is a myth that viruses attenuate over time. The story is that the virus adapts to its host, that it doesn't want to kill off the animal that hosts it.  The truth is that the virus doesn't want anything.  It simply reproduces.  The changes that happen are random, we only see the "successful" variants, the ones that spread better than all the rest. Whether the one that spreads best is more or less lethal is entirely random. If we keep the level of Covid high, by not seeking to get it down to minimal levels, then we will continue to get more variants.  Omicron is Covid crossed with the common cold virus (rhinovirus) which made it more transmissible.  The longer we retain high levels the more likely it is we get a variant that is both transmissible as Omicron and as deadly as previous SARS diseases.
 
Gamers know that the most unlikely things will happen if we roll the dice often enough.  The chance of the deadly pandemic is improbable, not impossible and the longer we choose to "live with Covid" increases the chances we will die with it. Keep rolling the dice lads... 😞
 
There is the strange thing of cherry picking numbers.  Most folk in hospital may indeed be vaccinated, most cases of Covid may indeed be vaccinated (but only in countries where the vast majority of people have been vaccinated.  If you look at the vaccinated and unvaccinated population, the unvaccinated will have a higher percentage who contract the disease and a much higher percentage that gets sick and dies. Again, gamers, and especially HERO gamers, should be better at running the numbers than this.
 
There is the point of people choosing to compare the disadvantages of being vaccinated against the baseline of normal life.  Any medical intervention, even injecting sterile water, will result in poor outcomes (the placebo effect works both ways).  But we are now in the situation where you need to compare getting Covid to getting vaccinated, the chance of remaining uninfected is tending toward zero.  In all measures vaccinations are less risky than getting Covid.
 
Finally, in what is a massively longer post than I intended, there is the absolutely odd inclination of people in both the UK and US questioning the involvement of the private sector in the vaccination programme.  Both countries tend to think the private sector is more efficient than government, and the people taking this line mostly come from the political wing that is more anti-government than anti-corporation. I tend to agree that these companies should not own the vaccines, the profit motive restricts rather than includes and slows down the distribution of vaccines worldwide.  We should not be donating doses of vaccine, we should be allowing the third world to make their own and, while utilising the infrastructure of big pharma, should not be adding to their bottom line by paying profits on necessary, global and potentially perennial vaccination programmes.
 
I may now have said all I need to.  Hope this passes moderation....
 
 

Do people really take Dispel Flight that often?  I never saw it, that I can recall.  It's something one NEVER sees in the superhero genre, either.  Knock the Surfer off his board?  Sure.  Knock Iron Man's jet boots offline?  Occasionally, especially, IIRC, Iron Man II.  Those aren't Dispels, tho.
 
Also:  can you cite where in the rules it allows a controlled landing with Flight, rather than an uncontrolled freefall?  
 
Last:  even if it's dispelled, it's pretty rare to take a complicated setup.  It can be restarted.  6E2 has the Falling Table;  it's NOT like you crash instantaneously.
 
I suspect most of us just see what you're trying to do as just...a misfit.  You're trying to go from A to B when there is no terrestrial path from A to B.  Fine.
--Flight as an Instant Power.
--Leaping.  
--Teleport, with Must Pass Through Intervening Space.
--how about Stretching, with Cannot Do Damage?  
 
I think none of us care to bastardize the core concept of Swinging, and the notion of "anchoring to nothing" is just...ehhh...weird.  Not when there's plenty of other ways to capture the idea.
 
 
 

First, I did not say "kept in prison indefinitely", I said "unemployable".
 
Second, I asked which crimes were similarly unforgivable, and did not suggest that all crimes are unforgivable. But I am not the one(s) suggesting that his actions were unforgivable either.
 
Finally, if we are addressing degrees of guilt, isn't a stupid choice of a hallowe'en costume decades ago pretty low?  More a misdemeanor than a felony; perhaps just a traffic violation?
 
If he had dressed up as Hannibal Lecter instead, would you be suggesting we keep him away from people under medical care, as we would not want to risk him deciding to have a snack?

Yeah looks like flight with a funny special effect to me.  It might appear to be swinging, but it doesn't have any of the normal constructs or limitations of swinging, its just moving through the air in an unusual way.

Flight

To many of these points, I can only say "When did we conclude that bigotry is rational?"
 
I did like an old Avengers where a cop asked why he should trust the Beast - "is he related to that mutant X-Men Beast?"

A bit off topic, but to m.mavnn's comment on Star Trek, I've commented in the past that Hero has multiple levels  of task resolution, and could have more options in that regard. We have the "opposed skill check" resolution for tasks expected to be fairly minor in-game and the "detailed and granular resolution" for the big  resolutions.  The latter is combat in Hero, but why does it need  to be in all games?
 
A more robust social conflict resolution would be more useful in a Court Intrigue game, or a Romance game. Mechanics for legal battles, or medical problems, could be more useful in some games (how many Star Trek episodes would be reduced to "make a xenobiology check" in a standard Hero game?
 
In many games where these tasks would benefit from a more granual resolution, physical violence might be reduced to making opposed Fisticuffs or Firearms skill rolls.

This seems pretty much the central point of the whole discussion. RPGs have a limited 'definition' of how granular they can be defining stats before they become unplayable, which inevitably means grouping things together that are related but, well, not the same. 
 
But what's important detail in one genre is window dressing in another; I once saw a Star Trek game that had no physical stats, for example, because it didn't need that detail. It just had a very broad 'physically superior' advantage if you wanted to be Data or Worf. 
 
In your case, both perception and INT skills are absolutely crucial to the genre of the campaign, so I would say your intuition to split them up is a good call *for this game*. HERO is as much an RPG creation toolkit at the end of the day (see heroic vs superheroic options), so if you're going off the beaten genre path you may as well lean into that. 

To many of these points, I can only say "When did we conclude that bigotry is rational?"
 
I did like an old Avengers where a cop asked why he should trust the Beast - "is he related to that mutant X-Men Beast?"

So do we replace BW with Shang-Chi?  That was certainly an option, but that would mean he's a "wow - I'm standing next to real Super-Heroes - what am I doing here?" Avenger rather than the non-WASP  major character that I believe they wanted for MCU.
 
 
I think they do a lot of "almost self-contained movies in a larger universe" that often fit into that larger universe in minor ways, or by later revelations.  Shang-Chi featured some other Marvel characters, but I think worked whether you knew who they were or not.  Eternals had a couple of nods to the broader MCU, the big one being the link to the snap and the return, featured in the trailers, but if you removed all references to the broader MCU, it would still have worked fine.  I'll pop another comment on Eternals and the broader MCU in the spoiler for those who have not seen it and don't want any further details beyond the trailers.
 
 
If anything, I think Marvel movies resemble early Marvel comics.  Sometimes the characters cross over in earnest, and when they do not there are still nods to the broader MCU in which they reside.
 
The other advantage of the Eternals is that, as largely unknown commodities to the general population, a lot of changes could be made to fit the desired movie. Without moving to spoiler territory, the breadth and variance of powers was expanded considerably.  Of the ten Eternals, Sersi, Gilgamesh, Phastos and Makkari became non-white, and Kingo went from Japanese to Indian.  Ajak, Sprite and Makkari changed gender, and Phastos was assigned an alternate sexual orientation (I don't believe the comics ever addressed his sexuality, whether hetero or otherwise).  Only Ikaris and Druig remained white males, and Thena remained a white female.
 
That worked well in this context, as the audience didn't identify changes in "iconic" characters - none of the Eternals are pop culture icons.
 
The movie is also more serious in tone than most MCU offerings.
 
 
Agreed, at least for the most part.  I think Fiege does a decent job balancing a movie that someone seeing an MCU film for the first time can understand and enjoy with connecting each movie to a larger tapestry.  Some work better than others, as some have more back story than others, but even the more interconnected movies have more of a "now I want to know more about what else has happened in other movies" feel than "I feel like I did not understand what was going on".  That's how I felt when I started reading comics as a kid in the early '70s. I am less certain on the movies as I did watch them all, largely in sequence.  We got into them with home video in the lead-up to the first Avengers, which my son was very excited by.

I'm sure.  This is one of
 
constructed using the table on page 354 to determine the advantage.  It is +1/4 basic and +1 for Grantor can force power on an unwilling recipient ("Usable as Attack").
 
Channelling my inner @Duke Bushido, because a Power with and Advantage is a unique power which differs from a power without an advantage. The rules even note the character might be able to "attack" himself.  That +1 UAA really combines a lot of other modifiers, as it automatically means "Grantor control" (normally +1/2), Grantor pays END (normally -1/4), Grantor can only use the power on others (normally -1/2) and recipient must remain in LOS (normally -1/4).  We could, from this, extrapolate that Grantor can Force Power is +1 1/2, with the above modifiers then applied.  If we remove the "can only use the power on others", and keep all of the other modifiers, we now have a +1 3/4 advantage (base + 1 1/2).
 
 
Applying the chart would solve that as well.  Add +1/4 to the advantage to move from "LOS" to "can go anywhere".  However, as I interpret the rule, I need LOS to use the attack.  Having used it, the target moves as I directed. If, during the movement, I lose LOS, I can't make them move again, but they complete the movement I "attacked" with when I could see them.
 
Maybe we need another 6 - 8 pages to cover all these cases as well?  This has been Hero's challenge - seek to describe every possible situation, and get rules bloat, or leave something out and "I should not have to figure  that out myself".  In other games, we just say "the rules don't allow that", but in Hero, we want to be able to build whatever we can imagine.
 

I'm sure.  This is one of
 
constructed using the table on page 354 to determine the advantage.  It is +1/4 basic and +1 for Grantor can force power on an unwilling recipient ("Usable as Attack").
 
Channelling my inner @Duke Bushido, because a Power with and Advantage is a unique power which differs from a power without an advantage. The rules even note the character might be able to "attack" himself.  That +1 UAA really combines a lot of other modifiers, as it automatically means "Grantor control" (normally +1/2), Grantor pays END (normally -1/4), Grantor can only use the power on others (normally -1/2) and recipient must remain in LOS (normally -1/4).  We could, from this, extrapolate that Grantor can Force Power is +1 1/2, with the above modifiers then applied.  If we remove the "can only use the power on others", and keep all of the other modifiers, we now have a +1 3/4 advantage (base + 1 1/2).
 
 
Applying the chart would solve that as well.  Add +1/4 to the advantage to move from "LOS" to "can go anywhere".  However, as I interpret the rule, I need LOS to use the attack.  Having used it, the target moves as I directed. If, during the movement, I lose LOS, I can't make them move again, but they complete the movement I "attacked" with when I could see them.
 
Maybe we need another 6 - 8 pages to cover all these cases as well?  This has been Hero's challenge - seek to describe every possible situation, and get rules bloat, or leave something out and "I should not have to figure  that out myself".  In other games, we just say "the rules don't allow that", but in Hero, we want to be able to build whatever we can imagine.
 

I'm sure.  This is one of
 
constructed using the table on page 354 to determine the advantage.  It is +1/4 basic and +1 for Grantor can force power on an unwilling recipient ("Usable as Attack").
 
Channelling my inner @Duke Bushido, because a Power with and Advantage is a unique power which differs from a power without an advantage. The rules even note the character might be able to "attack" himself.  That +1 UAA really combines a lot of other modifiers, as it automatically means "Grantor control" (normally +1/2), Grantor pays END (normally -1/4), Grantor can only use the power on others (normally -1/2) and recipient must remain in LOS (normally -1/4).  We could, from this, extrapolate that Grantor can Force Power is +1 1/2, with the above modifiers then applied.  If we remove the "can only use the power on others", and keep all of the other modifiers, we now have a +1 3/4 advantage (base + 1 1/2).
 
 
Applying the chart would solve that as well.  Add +1/4 to the advantage to move from "LOS" to "can go anywhere".  However, as I interpret the rule, I need LOS to use the attack.  Having used it, the target moves as I directed. If, during the movement, I lose LOS, I can't make them move again, but they complete the movement I "attacked" with when I could see them.
 
Maybe we need another 6 - 8 pages to cover all these cases as well?  This has been Hero's challenge - seek to describe every possible situation, and get rules bloat, or leave something out and "I should not have to figure  that out myself".  In other games, we just say "the rules don't allow that", but in Hero, we want to be able to build whatever we can imagine.
 

The problem is that everyone has an agenda, and someone has to pay for every research study. If it does not say what we want, we won't publicize it, nor will we pay for another. If there's some stuff we like, and some we don't, we'll cherry pick what we reference. "We can't have dirty oil running through pipelines".  Sounds good.  Can you manage without oil, or do you want to heat your home and drive?  So with no pipeline, we have to ship it some other way.  Like trucks, that add more emissions to the equation.  Or by sea, from foreign countries, many of whom are not so picky about environmental impact.
 
How many times have you heard a report that red wine, in moderation, is healthy?  The wine industry likes that.
 
Many years ago, I heard ONE report on a study that showed the benefits come from the grape skin being left on for red, but not white. You did not need red wine - grape juice with the skin left on was just as healthy.   But who wants to hear that? We want a reason to drink red wine, and the wine industry wants to sell red wine, so the wine reports get publicized.
 
Digging down to the reality is not easy,, and it has been made even more challenging as our population's attention span dwindles to a couple hundred characters.  Read BEYOND the first screen? How can you ask so much of me?

Like Christopher R Taylor, I find building the power with another power a good guideline for costing.  UAA would be needed to teleport not only an unwilling target, but also an unaware target (for example, an object or a Stunned teammate). 
 
Having snuck inside because you are stealthy, can you see your buddy the Brick? Line of Sight is generally required to use abilities that affect others, whether friend or foe.  Sensing the Apportee will also be an issue.
 
No Range means my target must be within HTH range. As noted in my "costing build" above, I think it's a wash, as the power is useless if the target is that close.  Technically, that's not the "build it from Teleport" model. but it is the outgrowth of "must be to the fixed location of right beside me". 
 
As for the fixed location, that's for pricing, in my view.  It would be more useful to be able to teleport the target anywhere I want, so limiting it to "right beside me" reduces the appropriate cost for the Apportation power.
 
Having gone through that pricing exercise, I'd call Apportation 1 point per 1 meter, as set out above. @Christopher R Taylor- thoughts?  Would you price it differently, having gone through a similar "build it through Teleport" exercise?
 
Now we can tweak it.   If only willing targets can be Apported (meaning they must be capable of forming that willingness, I would call that a limitation, probably -1 as it will curtail the power's utility considerably.  If it can target anything not unwilling (so objects and KOd targets are OK), that's probably -1/2.

More of a campaign like what occurred around smoking and drunk driving might be helpful. IMO this is something that responsible gun owners should get behind. Don't just be responsible yourselves, make it very publicly clear that irresponsible, toxic gun culture is unacceptable and people who engage in it have no place with you. Many people behave this way because it makes them feel like they're part of the cool crowd, so making them feel uncool and unwanted would probably push them to change.

As I see it, we are arguing over the precise value of a limitation which is significantly more limiting than normal range (so should not be -0), yet less limiting than having no range at all (so should not be -1/2).  What is left besides -1/4, which is where "Limited Range" evolved from in the first place?
 
That leaves me feeling like Derek - why are we overthinking this when we have an existing mechanic for "not full range but not no range either".  I'd also allow Extra Time to be used, but that's tougher as it applies mainly to extended ranges, and is Only to Activate.  Will the end result be markedly different than "limited range; longer range takes more time to set up"?

As I see it, we are arguing over the precise value of a limitation which is significantly more limiting than normal range (so should not be -0), yet less limiting than having no range at all (so should not be -1/2).  What is left besides -1/4, which is where "Limited Range" evolved from in the first place?
 
That leaves me feeling like Derek - why are we overthinking this when we have an existing mechanic for "not full range but not no range either".  I'd also allow Extra Time to be used, but that's tougher as it applies mainly to extended ranges, and is Only to Activate.  Will the end result be markedly different than "limited range; longer range takes more time to set up"?

Hmmm…


 
A Fixed Location (1 point) allows teleporting to that point, even if it can’t be clearly seen.  The character can still Teleport to other locations, except we will be limiting this one (-1).


 
UAA is UBO (one target, +1/4), UAA (+1). Most other reductions to UOO do not apply to UAA.  For example, the character can’t Teleport himself, by default.


 
It needs Range (limited, full or even megascale). However, given that apportation utterly useless without range, I suggest that it is ranged at no further cost.  If the target is adjacent to the user, the power can’t be used at all, so Range is flipped in this instance.


 
Getting more distance is easy with noncombat multiple or even Megascale, so we’ll leave that out for now.  It can be applied to whatever we price Apportation at.  As well, the character has to be able to perceive the target.


 
So, if we have 30 meters for 30 points, +1 for a fixed location = 31 x 2.25 (UAA), so 70 AP.  Only to one fixed location is -1, which gets us down to 35 RP for 30 meters.


 
Being that close, I’d say make it a variant Teleport 1 point per meter.

Thank you. And to your point, "sucks to be you" isn't exactly eloquent, I just didn't want to go into describing outcomes. I have a few minutes, so I'll do so with a couple of personal (not GSW) examples:
 
Back in 2010-2011, I had an abscess drained that left a narrow 10" (~25 cm) tunnel through muscle tissue. This kind of wound is about the best outcome someone is going to see if they get shot. My case was treated poorly and took a long time to heal, plus it was in the largest muscle in the human body. So, my healing time was longer than, say, someone getting shot in an extremity. However, even though I'm all healed up and have been for a while, that wound still aches from time to time, sometimes extremely so. Having a tract of scar tissue running through a muscle you use constantly just sucks. I also have about a quarter to half inch or so tear in a muscle directly behind my shoulder blade that I got being stupid and blowing it out back in 1989 or 1990. That also still hurts, almost constantly. 
 
Earlier this year, back in March, I had thoracic surgery by the best surgeon for such surgery in the area. There was no other significant tissue damage other than what was required to open me up, spread my ribs, and cut out a benign tumor. So, I have a much better outcome than a thoracic shooting victim, who may have damaged organs, shattered bones and other serious tissue trauma. The entire sheet of muscle around my back and side that was cut into still hurts, frequently contracts around the scar tissue, and the bottom of my rib cage still gives me serious spikes of pain. If I exert myself in the slightest, I end up walking around like a movie mummy for a couple days. Getting out of bed sucks. I randomly double up in pain at least every other day. And I wasn't shot.
 
So, if someone gets shot it's going to suck, even if it doesn't kill them. The vast majority of GSW injuries in the US are from handguns, and they tend to be of the first type, so relatively minor if they don't drill a hole in something important like an artery or organ. 
 
But that's all to support a side comment on the issue that was at hand: Intent. You don't use lethal force with the intent of killing an aggressor, you use it with the intent of stopping their attack. If you take up arms to defend yourself, you should be well-versed in their capabilities, and the levels of harm they can inflict. You should know your own limitations. You should act with the safety of your neighbors and the general public in mind. You should be cognizant of the range of reactions people will have both to being threatened with a firearm (ranging from, "I'm going to shove that thing up your ..." to "Oh crap! Ruuun!") and to being shot with a firearm (ranging from basically ignoring the wound and continuing the assault to running for the hills from a near miss). You should know that fights are chaotic and unpredictable in their outcomes. You should be aware that whatever the outcome, your life will be changed forever from the event.
 
 
This isn't possible to do with anything, whether it's weapons, vehicles, or spreading lies on the Internet.  I agree that it would be the most desirable result. That doesn't mean you ignore the issues, though. When I think about it, I start by considering two factors (from a US perspective):
 
People have the right to self defense. This is so fundamental, that it's natural law territory. In the US Constitution, this is encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. "Arms," are generally things that allow one to apply lethal or potentially lethal force. 
 
Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose. When a situation arises where the exercise of one's rights interferes or infringes on the rights or well-being of another person, then it's reasonable to enact laws that address the issue equitably.
 
Ideally, we balance the two concepts, and do so without denying large numbers of people their fundamental right. 
 
So, we could then start asking questions, like, "Do you need firearms to defend yourself?" or "What kind of firearms do you need to defend yourself?" or "If we allow people to have firearms to defend themselves, then should we limit what type of firearm is allowed to be taken to what location?" 
 
It's awkwardly phrased, but that last one is where my thoughts have been lately.
 
AR-15 style rifles are actually one of the best tools for defending yourself, if not the best. There are a number of reasons, and among them are ease of use and lethality. These also, not coincidentally, make the things great for offensive purposes. 
 
And when people read "lethality," their first thought will be, "Well, if the intent isn't to kill someone, why do you need one of those?" or "Well, clearly if you choose a high-lethality device for defense, your intent is to kill."  Prosecutors frequently ask the same questions.
 
The answer is that when you want to stop someone else from killing you, the time frame you want it done in is "as soon as possible." There's a large gap in power between the most powerful handgun rounds and the least powerful rifle rounds (which the 5.56 mostly falls under), barring a few uncommon examples. For commonly-used handgun rounds (which is to say, "service" calibers adopted originally for police/military use, not for hunting big game), the gap is even wider. So, the choice comes down to "might stop someone if you get lucky" or "likely to immediately stop hostilities." 
 
So, defense with a rifle round is reasonable. But how do we limit offense? What is the acceptable level of infringement into one's right to have the best tool available to defend themselves, that protects the general public from bad actors, unintended consequences, and irresponsible people?
 
I think it's reasonable to simply not allow weapons that chamber centerfire long gun calibers be carried in public, barring sporting use (hunting, mostly, which happens away from crowds) or transport in a locked container to and from other sporting activities.  
 
This makes it very simple to enforce: Police see a person walking around a riot with a long gun? Pick them up. They see someone walking around town with a long gun? Talk to them. Not just taking it to your vehicle to transport? Charge them. 
 
This leaves lots of issues on the table for both the "preserve rights" and "protect the public" sides of the equation:
 
On the one hand, you're not allowing people to carry the most effective tool possible for the job of self defense in public. I care less, honestly. Most people only arm up with long guns to go to demonstrations, or to try to "educate" the public on gun rights. They're a bunch of morons who don't need to be catered to. The mindset of a responsible gun owner is not to take on the role of the police in any situation, it's to protect your person and any family you may be with from an immediate threat. Handguns are the most commonly-faced such threat and very commonly used to stop such a threat. They're also a lot more discrete.
 
On the other hand, you can still harm neighbors if you miss indoors with a more powerful weapon that penetrates walls. In this case, the AR or the shotgun are actually better choices than a handgun for protecting neighbors from over penetration of building materials. While there is always some risk, it seems relatively low. 
 
This also doesn't address controlling handguns, but requiring training before allowing one to carry a handgun in public already has passed muster as constitutionally acceptable. I think even most gun rights advocates would accept a national concealed carry license, with a training requirement and extensive background check requirement, if it meant full transferability to all states. But it won't happen, because states want to reserve the right to regulate this for themselves. And that's not a horrible status quo from my perspective. 
 
This doesn't preclude someone from taking their lawfully-owned rifle, breaking it down, transporting it to a location, then committing an atrocity. Or doing the same with a lawfully-owned handgun they're not supposed to be carrying in the first place. 
 
So, that's the best I've come up with for a starting  point. There are probably countless minutiae to examine, even though I'm presenting this as a simple method of mitigation. I've already thought of several arguments for this being both insufficient and overly-restrictive. IMO, it'd be worth discussion and debate.
 
 
 
It happens. As you say, there's no great way to see data for events that nobody was charged in, outside of the news. I found an article about a local shooting in Seattle on September 3rd, where someone was shot and killed while attempting to rob someone at gun point, and that took a lot of digging through articles debating gun control to find. It never hit broadcast news here to my knowledge. Pointing out the number of criminals stopped by armed citizens isn't something a local government is going to go out of their way to do, either. It's simply bad publicity. 
 
At the end of the day, it will be difficult to address the matter of public safety vs the rights of the individual. These days, I'm leaning more toward public safety considerations having more weight. 
 
 
 
 

It's really a question of how far you think it's worth getting into the weeds.  I guess I don't see the value in it for this application. 

I kind of feel like we might be overthinking the plumbing, here.  This just sounds to me like a slightly unusual version of Limited Range (-¼).
 
It's not as bad as No Range; it's not as good as standard range. To me, that sounds like Limited Range.  Granted, it's limited in a different way than the typical application of Limited Range, but the fact that it can (eventually) get out to standard range is offset by the fact that it starts out at No Range, and has to take time (and the cost of Mobile Perception Point) to get out to the full range.
 
So I dunno... I think I'd just build a Clairsentience with Mobile Perception Point, slap Limited Range on it, and call it good.   

I second Derek's comments.  Having a 13 OCV will not help the combat expert when trying to get in close for a quick strike on a vehicle that isn't very responsive to the driver, so can't react as rapidly to the target's movements.

So it has less than the full advantages of Range, and it is not No Range.  That sounds a lot like Limited Range, somewhere between no limitation and no range, which is a -1/4 limitation.