Christopher

I would just simulate it with CSL or plain old OCV, DCV and 0 END STR.
 
For me "Marital Arts the Rules construct" is first and foremost a way to save points. Not spending so much on CV and STR (and possibly END and REC).
I find it entierly acceptable to give a Constrictor Snake a 'Martial Art' that gives bonuses to the Grab, Choke and Crush maneuvers to simulate it being good at those.
 
There is a few unique things that currently only martial arts can do. But HSMA 6E has some ideas how to turn those things into normal Optional combat maneuvers.

Except it does not say that at all?
" Invisibility to Sight Group covers a character’s fists when he punches someone (or the like) using just his STR (and related abilities, like Martial Arts). But it doesn’t make his weapons-based attacks Invisible — that requires the Invisible Power Effects Advantage. As long as the character just holds the weapon and doesn’t use it, his Invisibility covers it. "
 
The only thing even remotely like this is:
" If a character has an Obvious Focus that provides him with Invisibility, the Invisibility doesn’t cover the Focus. Only Inobvious Foci are covered by the Invisibility they generate."
And that only means "a focus on the Invisibiltiy Power should at tops be a inobvious one".
 
Everything else is how Perceivable Powers interact with Invisibility. And there is some overlap with Percievability of a Power and a Focus.

Why do you want this in your game?  I don't believe this sort of power has any business being in a TTRPG. 
If used against a PC, it's "Zap!  Ron is dead.  Make a new character.".  Worse yet, it can very easily be a situation where the player had zero input from the time the enemy revealed their death-spell to the time of PC death.  That just comes off as "Haha!  Killed your dude!  Sucker!". 
If used by a PC it's likely to be of utterly binary power, either completely dominating (A la D&D3-PFs no-save-just-lose spells) or useless ("Zap!  He's unaffected.  Zap!  He's unaffected.  Screw it, firebolt!").  Both cause issues. 

And have the sitter say "Probably in their room. Which one is the kid's room anyway? The one with all the toys? Oh wait, there IS no room with toys or any other indications that a child was ever present. I don't know what's wrong with you people but as long as you're paying me to watch a nonexistent child, I'll take your money but I won't take your crap."
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary has no money to take

Could even do something like Pun enters room of 100 people, decimates them. then Pun in, Ten Dead.

I ought to note, I also thought of putting in the Jedi -- "There is a disturbance in the force." quotes.

You could use danger sense for a simple disarm the bomb scenario (once) if its a choice between two options: this one is danger, that one is not.  I'm fine with that kind of creativity but don't push it because the next bomb will have lots of options that will waste your time and you won't get the thing disarmed before it goes off unless you know what you're doing.

Yeah  look, "can't simulate existing game constructs with other powers" is all well and good. But aren't all the powers existing game constructs? In which case what is simulating what?  Seriously, which one is "simulating" which one: Transform to Dead Person or Killing Attack vs. Power Defense? Do we need to know which one comes first? Is there some sort of list that prioritises them?
 
Not that I'm aware of.
 
The problem with danger sense is not that it crosses a line into simulating other powers, it's that it doesn't simulate other powers in a clear enough way, thereby leading to arguments during a game. Me, I don't want that at my game table. I already have enough trouble wrangling (some) players into playing within a set of assumptions in which I am happy to run a game. I don't need this s#!t too.
 
As an aside: not allowing players  to use their super powers to do something improbable but thematically fitting is probably a bad GMing style, especially for the supers genre.
 

I think global (or even long-distance) is to represent that "Lois is in trouble!" gut sensation more than anything else, but it's not like the rules aren't open to interpretation. 

Is it an issue in your game?
Like a bunch of PCs\NPCs with OAFs and Invis jackin' up your plans?
 
I can see the reasoning\read the rules about Obv focii but if it doesn't fit the genre or isn't interesting or fun: Dump it!
 
How much is it coming up though? What sort of player cheese is this oriented around? 
 
I'd just (well...I do, so...) make Invis work like I want it to and ignore the focus rules. 
 
 

I can only agree with that. The value of the limitation is highly subject to the gaming circumstances. You even have to include the option of a ally moving the enemy farther away (Knockback, Shove, Grab or Telekinesis).
 
This Character sounds like a Blaster. And it is always beneficial for a blaster to be away from his enemy. Especially if the enemy is a melee oponent.
There is the range Modifier, but that might already be accounted for with defensive bonus. And/or Offensive Penalty Skill Levels.
 
Building it as a composite power is a acceptable way.
A "single power with limitation" approach has the advantage of clearly stating the total damage.
 
 
I do have a unique idea to add: Combat Maneuvers.
 
The "Haymaker" maneuver is defined as "taking extra time to do more damage".
Him flying away to deal more damage could be how he "takes extra time to do more damage" for this attack.
If you give the Character Ranged Martial Arts (HSMA 6E), this could be a maneuver with the "Half Move Required" Element added. I mean it is even allowed for Ranged Martial Arts, wich is something I did not expect.
Even the Velocity element might work (again allowed for ranged martial arts). Usually it is about running towards the enemy to get more force of impact (like throwing a spear from a run). But in this case it is about running away to do deal more damage. Of course consider what I said above about it being usually beneficial to be farther away.

I didn't do it intentionally, but I've written a test with a multiple choice section where none of the correct answers are C.

I think that was only my Fantasy Hero games XD

Just watched Alita and I came away impressed. It managed to compress a great deal of the manga, stay true to it and still tell good story with great visuals and top line action. I'll say 4.5 out of 5 stars.

I'm that too.

I'm a social democrat, which seems to terrify a lot of people. 



 

Of course, the monster I'd most like to be is a dragon.  However, I'm not really greedy and all dragons are greedy.  
 
So, I'm somewhat slow and methodical, I stay confined to a set area, I'm generally open and honest which leads to a lot of transparency in my life, the people closest to me often say I'm amazingly silent and sneaky for my size, and I've collected a rather large, odd assortment of weapons throughout my life.  The monster I'm probably closest to is: 
 
Gelatinous Cube

well this thread took a turn. if anyone is still interested: we've decided to just roll with combat luck stacking on armor for now. agreed as a group to re-evaluate if anyone thinks it has become a problem... tankiest character in the group is 9rpd/12pd with armor. it seems a little high, but were playing a more role-play heavy game, and hes still in danger of getting knocked unconscious.  which to a degree makes sense to me..
 
if you gave me a normal person, even with a little above average strength, a long sword and told me to damage a competent maneuverable person in llamelar armor (he is suffering no encumbrance with his current str/weight) i dont think i could realistically do any body to him.  now a person with training (modeled by str only with sword) that is capable of upping the damage to 2 and a half d6, is fully capable of knowing the right spots to hit to actually hurt the armored person.
 
as for the philosophical combat luck debate: Ive always seen it as a "grazed you" option.  Arrow bounces off the armor, of if unarmored, scrapes the bone etc....  Sometimes we have fun with it and rename the power "Just a scratch!" or "Rolling with the punch."  DND has similar mechanics in that if the monster rolls a 17 against the 18 AC fighter its more fun to say "His jaw snaps shut on your forearm but is unable to pierce the armor" rather than a simple "he missed" 

i mean we could theoretically argue that hit points from DND and stun/body in hero are really just plot armor points, once you reach 0 you've expended your allotment of bullshit before the inevitable happens.  

Knowing that they are "Rubber Forehead aliens" does help a lot and was the one thing we really needed to know.

Fun fact:
Analog Transmissions were prone to always have a slight "noise" effect. It was a physical limitation, based on electric noise along the wires.
 
Digital Transmissions (like Mobile Phones) are not affected by noise the same way. Noise reduces the Bandwidth. But you do not hear it, like with Analog Transmissions. Noise only worked on first and last few "Analog centimeters" (the microphone and speaker cables). Wich was usually laughable compared to the noise of kilometers of transmission wire.
That was a huge issue as people would ask "Hello, are you still there?" all the time when testing digital communications. So right now we end up adding Noise to the Audio Signal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_noise
Just so people still know the channel is open.

For slightly above 66 AP, you get a 3D6 entangle with 3 Defenses. That is the result of applying 1 1/4 advatages to any attack power.
 
Meanwhile at a mere 20 EGO; the dragon rolls 4D6 for 2 END to break out:
" The victim uses EGO, not STR, to escape a Mental Paralysis. He rolls 1d6 per 5 points of EGO; this costs 1 END per 10 Character Points of EGO used, and he can Push his EGO for this purpose. He may use his Casual EGO (half of
his EGO) to break out of weak Mental Paralysis attacks effortlessly"
As usual, pushing this End costing operation is an option.
 
Both rolls count like "normal damage" (i.e., count the body like you would on a normal damage attack).
 
Mental defense does not add to that by default:
" Mental Defense neither adds to the character’s EGO for purposes of breaking out of, nor offers any other protection against, Mental Paralysis. Characters can apply a -½ Limitation, Mental Defense Adds To EGO, to Mental Paralysis. That means Mental Defense adds to EGO, point for point, in calculating the EGO a character may exert to break free"
 
Entangle is known to have some abuse potential. One of the APG's actually discusses weak entangles with the sole purpose of lowering the targets DCV.
This set of modifiers might even require a warning label.
Allowing Metnal Paralysis in the game without having the boss design account for it was a mistake. You now know it and can remove it or account or it.