Netzilla

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Hey! Who said this had anything to do with 'reasonable'. Well, yeah, I basically said that in post 77 or 79. I would have stayed off this thread had it not appeared that my ideas were being missinterpreted. And when they don't agree, you get arguments like this one. You, sir, are pooping on this party. 'Reasonable' indeed. Like 'reasonable' has any place on the internet.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Just for the record, I've never made any objections based on the value of the limitation. I'm only interested in which game mechanics best fit the special effects of the IM character. The one person I do remember basing their argument on cost, never suggested the use of Restrainable. If someone else did object based on cost & then suggested an equivalently valued construction, then I agree. That's just silly.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID I really don’t see any precedent for thinking they can do it ‘in short order’. Someone using their computer hacking skills over the course of hours or days to bypass the armor’s security systems in order to remove it seems to be at least as complex as surgery and thus Restrainable does apply. The armor becoming sentient is the equivalent of a one-time GM-fiat creation of a new supervillain. Stark giving someone else access to the armor is doable by either making the armor Independent or Usable by Others in addition to Restrainable. None of those things violates the limitations that Restrainable place upon the character: Can be damaged in combat or specific special effects, can be targeted separately from the character, can be removed against the character’s will by a complex & time-consuming process. So far Restrainable still applies. That depends on the special effects defined by ‘something else’. It might take hours to override the security system without the passcodes, but the passcodes provide an obvious shortcut. As for cybernetics, it still depends on the exact special effect. A cybernetic hand might be wired into a mount on someone’s forearm. The hand may require surgery (or possibly electrician work) to remove but could be fairly quick to replace depending on if the mount was damaged in the process and how familiar the cyber-tech was with your case. I still haven’t seen a rulebook quote stating the requirement you’re suggesting. No, you’re the one who insisted that other people were saying never to use OIF. I’ve simply pointed out that no one else made that claim. If your purpose here is to counter that argument, you’re here for the wrong reasons. That’s all I was saying. By my reading of the thread, I don’t think people were reaching as far as you thought they were, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s not just a matter of using the armor that requires technical expertise. It’s also the case for simply removing/disabling the armor. That has nothing to do with a Focus’s Applicability. There’s nothing Captain Stupendous can do to get his powers to work without saying the magic words. If he’s rendered mute (physically or psychologically, permanently or temporarily) he can’t change forms. If Captain Stupendous is rendered mute by a spell that can only be removed via a counterspell or eating a certain plant root, does that mean he couldn’t possibly have qualified for buying his powers OIHID? How about if he gets sick and loses his voice? What if he gets amnesia and can’t remember the command word? The only difference I see is a matter of physical location. You need to show me how being denied the ability to speak the magic words is significantly more limiting than being denied access to your power armor. Either way it’s going to take a variable amount of time & effort to get your powers back. By the way, are you claiming that the book was wrong to use powered armor as an example for OIHID or that said power armor could never be taken out of the character’s reach because the character would have to travel to get to their powers? Not even close. I’m saying that because we haven’t seen it done that we can’t assume that it can be done. I’m also saying that, since all of the instances of it being done so far required more effort than removing an Inaccessable Focus, that it is more difficult to remove than an Inaccessable Focus. My argument is about how easy the armor has to be to take off by someone else against the character’s will in order to qualify for OIF. I’ve seen no evidence presented to support the idea that Iron Man’s armor can be removed as easily as an OIF by anyone, let alone everyone. An OIF can be removed by anyone taking a turn out of combat. That’s already been shown false in the comics. No. I was pointing out how you changed my example. I would have called it a Straw Man argument had I thought you had done it intentionally.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID If a character takes a Focus from a bad guy is he allowed to keep using it indefinately (to make it equivalent to having cybernetics implanted) without paying any points for it? If someone takes your character's Power Armor from you, are they able to immediately use it or do they have to spend time defeating it's security and learning the piloting controls? If they can use it immediately, then that's going to require some limitation above and beyond Restrainable. I don't dispute that. If they can't, then if it's a Focus (depending on meeting other criteria), it has to be a Personal Focus. Again, a matter of character interpretation. Since I've had a chance to go back over some of my old issues, the few times I've ever seen someone else control the armor were someone to whom Tony gave access, a couple of villains that were known for extremely high technical savvy who took days or hours setting up the process of overriding the IM security system and one instance in which Tony had created the armor's computer system so well that it became sentient by accident. Where in the rule book are you getting that it has to be hard to put back on? The only limits placed on restrainable are in how easy it is to remove or disable. There is nothing that limits how hard it is to put in place or enable. By that logic, higher active point Foci should be harder to repair or replace than lower active point Foci because they are harder to destroy. You can house-rule it that way, but it's not a book ruling. I did and the vast majority were saying that it depends on in what ways you expect the armor to be limited (in relation to getting it taken away & damaged in pretty much every case). One person did say that 'most' were better built as OIHID but then offered several caveats to go with it. That was the most anyone had objected to OIF when you came in to the thread saying, "You guys really seem to be married to one aspect of what constitutes a focus." Some time after that, someone else mentioned the possibility of abusing the rules of OIF by building a power framework that way and thus concluded that OIHID is better from a game balance standpoint unless all the Focus rules were enforced. Those were the strongest objections to OIF that I recall. I certainly don't recall a single instance of anyone claiming that OIF should never be used for power armor. Perhaps you can provide a quote. In every case that I recall seeing that, he was worrying about someone with the proper technical know-how stealing his armor. I don't recall him ever worrying about it from someone who didn't have that kind of expertise. I fail to see a significant difference. In one case, Captain Stupendous manages to get untied or have the gag taken away. In the other, Tony Stark manages to retrieve his briefcase from whoever stole it or get back to the lab for another suit. Either way, the time frame is variable (and your objection was initially based on time), both can potentially be done alone but would be easier with someone else's help and both completely prevent our hero from getting into ID at all Can you provide an example of what you think makes the two scenarios significantly different? In the case of your campaign, we have solid evidence the power can be easily taken away out of combat because it's right there on the character sheet and in the rules. There is no equivalent for Iron Man. We've seen no solid evidence suggesting that Iron Man's armor is anything close to easy to take away from him. Since we can't read the authors' minds we have to go by what's been printed and draw conclusions from that. Every instance I've seen in which the IM armor has been taken has involved proper technical skills and time, Tony Stark's help or a unique circumstance. While being suffocated does qualify as "exposed to", "exposed to" requires neither suffocation nor does it imply it. Simply standing next to something qualifies as "exposed to". Your interpretation of my example is far too narrow. The only problem with using the damaging rules for Restrainable powers is that they aren't defined in any concrete way. So, you have to make something up. On the other hand, at least you're not changing rules that way. In both cases you're "just making stuff up", but if you're actually changing rules, the build becomes less 'cross-GM compatible' IMO since you must also justify not using the existing rules. In any case, these days, IM's armor probably is better done as a Vehicle with a built-in Computer. After all, it can be remotely controlled by Stark, has the ability to perform limited self-piloting and a whole host of things that better follow the Vehicle rules than OIF, OIHID or Restrainable. I haven't concerned my self with Vehicle builds for powered armor because the potential for abuse would pretty much get that build rejected out of hand by most GMs.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Now that last sentence is an interesting argument. However, if the cybernetic implants were surgically attached to someone else, that other person could use them. Hardly an easy process, but one that does fit the example used in the book even if it’s not explicitly stated. That’s purely a GM call and hardly outside the realm of reason or against the rules. So, how does this relate to IM? Well, again, it’s a matter of character interpretation. Just how easy is it to take control of IM’s armor? Does it require reprogramming/overriding/circumventing the armor’s security systems? If so, it’s something that would take hours & specialized skills. In other words, it may well be as complex a process as surgery. Why not? The example under Restrainable specifically states that the power in question can be damaged. We can’t know that as it’s never been shown (that I know of). You’re assuming it can be done that easily. I’m not. Since we can’t read the writer’s mind, we can’t effectively go by what’s not shown. Besides that, back in post 79, I addressed the fact that this may be well-nigh irresolvable because of varied writers & inconsistencies within comic books in general, much less Iron Man specifically. The only way to come up with something anywhere close to a write-up a majority of people would agree on would be to pick a specific writer that showed considerable consistency and base our interpretation on what was shown by that writer. What part of OIHID says that it’s impossible for the ID to be inaccessible longer than 30 minutes (an estimate of how long it might take to get across town)? Is there a time limit on how long a gag may be placed over someone’s mouth to prevent his saying the magic word that turns him into Captain Stupendous? Now, I’d agree that OIHID shouldn’t leave a heroic ID inaccessible longer than an entire ‘adventure’ unless recovering the ID is going to be the focus of that ‘adventure’. Anything less seems fairly reasonable (depending also upon frequency). This is another idea that I covered in post 79. Besides which, I’ve already shown how Iron Man violates OIHID because it takes him less than a Full Phase Action to change into the armor (again in post 77). I would worry about this, except for two things: 1. I never claimed that OIHID + Restrainable is always (or even most often) a better choice than OIF for power armor. I’ve simply pointed out that if your power armor is OIF, that means that: 1A) Your power armor will be removable in 12 seconds (1 turn) out of combat. 1B) Your power armor’s powers will be completely destroyed every time your armor’s DEF is breached. They will not be reduced, forced to work only intermittently or cut out for a short time and then come back on. They will be destroyed. Not only that, but Frameworks count as a single power for these purposes. 1C) You will not be able to make repairs in combat. You will need access to equipment, the proper skills & time to effect repairs. [All of the above are violated by the Iron Man example many times.] 2. My interpretation of restrainable is exactly by the book and I fail to see how you can claim that it’s in any way “broadâ€. I went over the requirements for all of the limitations under discussion (Focus, OIHID and Restrainable) back in post 79. Do you refute any of that? If not, then our entire dissagreement is not based upon game mechanics, but rather upon our individual interpretation of the Iron Man character & I've already covered (in that same message) how impossible that is to resolve.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Well, I said I was done until new ground was covered, but it seems parts of my argument are being mis-represented, so I just want to clairify. At this point, we're no longer debating rules as I've already stated that the removal process needs to be equally as complicated as surgery ("complex removal process like surgery"). What we're debating is weather or not the removal process of Iron Man's armor (for anyone other than the armor's wearer or inventor) is that complex. That is purely individual interpretation of the character. You'll have to provide an example that shows his armor is so easy to remove that it doesn't take hours & specialized skill uses before you'll convince me that it's not a complex process. It's more than just losing the item that qualifies it for being a focus. It also has to be detectable in some way & damageable in at least one unique way or in a way compatible with the Focus Durability rules. The Accessibility rules adequately cover how often a Focus can be lost (as in taken away from the character).

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Buying each power individually with OIF is certainly valid. I'm not sure what special effect would justify it & if you're buying your powers that way just to get around the 12-second rule, that's pure cheese. In any case, there're a couple things to keep in mind with this: If the powers are in a framework, and that framework's Pool or Control has OIF applied to it, the entire framework can be negated in 1 turn out of combat. All of the powered armor's powers would generally include the Armor power as well. If the Armor power is bought OIF along with the rest of it, the only real way to negate it is to take it off the wearer (or the majority of it anyway). So the body armor portion of it is going to have to have some sort of quick-release mechanism.

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation? Here we go again. I'm not SleepyDrug, but I was part of that debate which was fairly well & amicably resolved. If you re-read the last couple pages of that debate (start around page 4), you'll see all of this (plus a few other things) covered there as well. However, in order to save folks reading this thread from reading for/through that one, I'll answer your questions here: For taking away OIHID powers: "For example, the powered armor character described above never seems to lose his suit for long or have it taken away from him while he's wearing it." Right there, it says that his suit can be taken away. However, it can't be taken away while he's wearing it & if it does get taken away it will be recovered/replaced faster than a focus would be ('faster' being implied). (HSR 197) Now, I don't recall Tony ever losing his armor for more than a single issue & that was always involved in a multi-issue storyline (i.e. one "adventure"). He's always able to recover or replace his suit before the "adventure" is over. In fact, recovering/replacing the suit becomes a significant point of the storyline. This has happened maybe twice in the 4 years (48 issues not counting Avengers & other appearances) since I've gotten back into the title. Seems to pretty well match with the idea of "never seems to lose his suit for long…"

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Personally, I have no problem with it. It was someone else earlier in the thread that ruled out all house rules in this discussion. If one does not allow OIHID to be breakable based on special effect as a house rule, then one can't replace destroyed with suppressed for focus damaging rules or allow for quick in-combat repairs to be made. I don't think 'always' is required. There's nothing in the wording of OIHID that suggests that their example power armor character would always have his armor with him. OIHID, like most Limitations, primarily defines what your character can't do. OIHID requires that it take at least a Full Phase Action to change forms and that there's a way of preventing that change. This is a set up of your minimum difficulties. It places no direct maximum on how difficult the change is. In fact, it specifically states that their example power armor character probably takes longer than a Full Phase to change forms. The fact that Tony's armor may be in the trunk of his car rather than immediately on hand seems of sufficiently similar inconvenience (really it's a matter of how often the armor is inaccessible; and its exceptionally rare for it to be completely inaccessible; i.e. can't be gotten to during the current combat). As for CSS, is it a Full Phase Action to summon the armor? Is it reasonably easy to separate him from his cards (say as easy as slapping your hand over Billy Batson's mouth to prevent his saying 'Shazam')? If the answer is 'no' to both those questions then OIHID doesn't apply. For what it's worth, IM actually fails the Full Phase Action to activate test these days. I know it used to apply to him, but apparently he's bought it off since the days of the silver & red armor. Limitations are almost always in some way or another subjective. That's why these boards are so active. Place would become pretty freakin' boring if there weren't room for interpretation within the rules. Of course, the real difficulty is that we're trying to take a comic book character with nearly 40 years of history and wedge it into a couple of limitations. I really don't think there's a perfect fit for IM because there's so much variability from writer to writer. That's true of any comic book character. The only way we'd have a chance of truly resolving this would be to pick a specific area of IM along with one of the more consistent writers and base our write-up on that. Even then, I'm sure someone could come up with a nit we haven't picked. However, I think we've managed to bring the majority of the conflicting issues to light: Focus requires the following to be a valid focus: 1) Be in some way detectable. 2) Be removable within 12 seconds out of combat 3) Be damageable in some way 3A) Individual powers are damaged on an all-or-nothing basis, not by degrees 3B) Power Frameworks are all one power for these purposes. 3C) Repairs require significant time & effort to complete (i.e. can't be done while someone's trying to pound your head in) 4) The other three components of Focus (Mobility, Expendability and Applicability) are sufficiently broad as to not likely make much difference OIHID requires the following to be valid: 1) Take at least a Full Phase Action to change forms during which no other Actions may be taken 2) Changing forms must be in some way preventable and while it doesn't specify easily, by the examples it does seem implied. Restrainable has different requirements depending on level 1) Full Restrainable requires that a power can be Grabbed and Entangled in order to prevent that power from working 2) Lesser Restrainable requires that a power be disabled and/or removed by some means more rare than a Grab or Entangle (including combat damage, special effects interactions and complex removal processes like surgery) but still be targettable separate from the character (with a -2OCV mod at best) Ultimately IM fails the Focus test (2 & 3) and the OIHID test. (1). Restrainable seems to be the only one that applies to IM strictly by the book. So, I think we've managed to cover all the ground there is to cover on this issue. Unless someone has something new to add, I'll probably be retiring from this thread. I'll keep an eye on it in case fresh territory does get discovered, though. Later & good debating.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID I've seen him make in-combat repairs often enough to think it doesn't follow the full Durability rules for Focus. It's not a matter of how easy it is (I'd think it would require a skill roll with modifiers for cutting down time & being distracted in combat), but that he can do it at all. Normally a focus cannot be repaired/replaced in combat all. That's what I meant by it being easier to repair than a normal Focus. Also, it's rather common that IM's powers aren't knocked out but are instead reduced in power. That's not the way Foci work. Foci are either completely destroyed or not. Now, I haven't done a count of how many issues Stark makes mid-combat repairs vs. having to go back to base; or how often powers are reduced rather than outright destroyed, but it seems to me that they happen more often than not. It likely varies by writer anyway. But, it is a valid concern for power armor characters. If you buy your powers in a Focus, you won't be able to make in-combat repairs (out of combat field repairs possibly), and powers will be knocked out wholesale rather than just reduced to half effectiveness or intermittently cut out. Well, I've done what I could to clarify where I'm coming from. My main point that I've wanted to get across, however, is that not all breakable things are Foci nor are all removable things. Those two criteria (along with other Focus criteria) need to be examined more closely before saying 'it's has to be a focus'. My interpretation for losing OIHID powers mainly comes from the line "never seems to lose his suit for long". You can lose the suit, but you'll get it back/replace it quicker than you would with a focus. Note, that specifically, you'd have to lose it either while you're not wearing it or while in the process of putting it on. By OIHID, once it's on, it's too late. I find civil debate on the internet rare enough that I feel it should be encouraged whenever encountered.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID I just use the [ QUOTE] [/ QUOTE] blocks to bracket off the other person's words. Just remove the blank spaces.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Yep. Agreed. Certainly not in IM's case, so agreed. That may be, but as I've mentioned in other posts, the effects of how the armor is most often damaged (reduced in power or intermittent working rather than destroyed) and the ease with which Tony has been able to make repairs both violate the mechanics of Durability for Focus. Actually, OIHID does not say that it requires an action it change forms. It simply states "the change must take at least a Full Phase". Full Phase is a measurement of time, not necessarily Actions. If you look at similar limitations, not allowing the character to do anything else during the activation time is worth an additional limitation. I have posted a question to the 'Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions' Forum for clarification on this issue. Also, considering Stark is probably at least SPD 4 (maybe 3 but I doubt it), a Full Phase is only about 3 seconds. That's fairly reasonable for a single panel of a comic book. Agreed.

The Limitation Only In Hero ID states that a power with this Lim must take at least a Full Phase to activate. Can the character still take other actions during this activation time?

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID It's a comments like that in conjunction with your earlier accusation of our not thinking critically simply because we don't agree with you. There's no point in making comments like that. Simply deal with the points as they're raised, and leave the snide remarks out of it. But it needs to if it's going to simulate the way IM's armor takes damage in the books. See above. Incorrect. OIHID does not mention damage at all. As to accessibility, it only limits the accessibility of the power armor while it's being worn. I still haven't seen an example of IM losing his armor while wearing it. If you're going to use IM as an example, you have to use him as he's been written in the official Marvel publications. After all, I can imagine a story in which Tony replaces his armor with biogenetic implants, making all of his powers intrinsic to himself. That's definitely not a Focus. Quoted above, with page references. Now, can you explain, with rulebook page references, how IM's armor violates the combination of OIHID plus Restrainable? Show me where rules need to be made up in that case. I've already shown where you'll need to make up new Durability rules for Focus.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Are you deliberately attempting to come across in an inflammatory way? Why don't you stick to debating the points as they come up rather than throwing around accusations like this? While I think that 'the bulk of the rules' is over-stating your case, I can understand your concern. However, I would rather a limitation be more limiting than is intended than less. You apparently feel the opposite way. More than one deviation (as you still haven't address the damage issue) and 'very small' is a subjective term I don't agree with here. Again, I disagree with that we've suggested 'taking the bulk of the mechanics' for Focus. We've taken 2 aspects of it, Durability and Accessability. We have not taken Obviousness, Mobility, Expendabiltiy or Applicability into it. That's 2 out of 6 components for Focus. Not to mention that that OIHID does cover Accessability to the point that the armor cannot be taken while the character is wearing it (which is something I've never seen happen to IM; perhaps you can provide a counter-example).

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Well, I can't take credit for it as JmOz first mentioned it.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Just for clarity's sake, I will point out that I never claimed that the only limitation on IM's armor be OIHID. In fact, I've noted that using the Restrainable lim is debatably possible. Now that I've had a chance to look it up in the book, the description of Restrainable does read, "Removing cyberware typically requires surgery, but it can often be disabled or incapacitated if damaged (visible cyberware can usually be targeted at -2 OCV) or exposed to various types of electromagnetic radiations, and these weaknesses are well-known. Since surgery is required to remove cyberware, it's not really a Focus, but it can be considered Restrainable. In this case Restrainable is only a -1/4 Limitation, since disabling the body part is harder than usual or requires special equipment." (HSR, 200) Given that, Restrainable does seem applicable in this case. So, I would agree that Restrainable is a valid addition to or replacement for OIHID in Iron Man's case. While I don't believe you intended insult with that statement, it is most certainly and unfair and inflammatory accusation. I don't believe you have any evidence to support that idea. Simply because we have disagreed with you does not mean that we are not thinking critically here. In fact, the opposite is supported by the fact that we have both presented arguments supporting our side and countering yours. Debatably covered by OIHID. Certainly covered by Restrainable. Also, the way that IM's armor is damaged is inconsistent with the way Foci are damaged: "…each attack which penetrates the DEF of the Focus destroys one of the Powers bought through the Focus. The amount of BODY done is unimportant -- one Power is destroyed weather the attack did 1 BODY or 15." A couple lines later: "For this purpose, a Multipower counts as one Power (with Active Points equal to the value of its reserve, +1 point for each slot); an Elemental Control counts as one Power (with Active Points equal to the value of the Active Points in the largest Power in the EC, +1 for each additional Power);…" Finally, a couple paragraphs later: "A character can repair, rebuild or replace a Breakable Focus with some effort. This usually involves acquiring or building a replacement." (HSR, 189-190) IM has managed to do repairs in the middle of combat (which violates the above rules on damaged Foci) and has had powers simply reduced or work intermittently rather than destroyed by damage. Debatably covered by OIHID. Certainly covered by Restrainable. Too long to qualify for Focus as Foci must be removable inside of 12 seconds out of combat. That second power seems rather kludgy to me and would be very hard to run past most GM's I've met. It's a legal constructions but certainly uglier than OIHID, breakable (-1/4) or OIHID (-1/4) plus Restrainable (-1/4), which are also legal constructions. I am unconvinced that Focus is either more appropriate or more desirable a build for IM. Also very hard to justify to a GM.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID I'm of the opinion that he doesn't deserve any limitation as his being without his armor is so exceptionally rare that it doesn't happen often enough to warrant a -1/4 limitation. I'm not familiar with Firebrand or Melter. I mostly read IM in the late 80s (up through Armor Wars) and only picked it up again a couple years ago. However, were any of his powers completely knocked out for the rest of the fight, temporarily disabled until Tony could 'Reboot' or whatever to restart the power, or simply reduced in power? No real bearing on if something is a focus or not. After all, Colossus can be manipulated by magnetic powers & he's certainly not a focus. Some energy-based characters can have their powers neutralized by EMPs without buying them through a Focus. Other characters have had control their powers taken away (hacked) without their being bought through a focus. This falls under the heading of Special Effects. When I get home, I'll quote the passage in the book that states that even an Inaccessible Focus must be removable in 1 turn out of combat. Just because the descriptions of these characters (like Armadillo) do not state how the power may be removed in that time frame, does not mean that it cannot be done. It's simply left up to the GM, but by the game mechanics it has to be possible.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID I've mentioned ease of replacement/repair in nearly every post I've made on the subject. I did not quote the description verbatim, but I figured everyone realized what I was talking about there.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Only In Heroic Identity states that the character must be in that identity for that power to work. There must be a way of preventing that character from getting into that identity and/or complications related thereto. Having the object that provides the identy break sounds like a prevention/complication to me. Is the armor the identity, or is it a way of getting into the identity? If Tony Stark is in a different version of the IM armor is he no longer Iron Man? Because one suit of armor is dissabled, it does not mean the IM identity has been destroyed. It has become inaccessable. Can you cite a rule stating that all breakable powers must be bought as a Focus or a Vehicle? That seems to be the stance you are taking. What power/advantage do you buy that causes an Inaccessable Focus to take longer than 12 seconds to remove? It is a fundamental component of the Focus limitation that it be at least that accessable. Again, using the description of OIHID given in the HSR, do you contend that the power armor listed there can never be removed under any circumstances? Can you cite a rule that states that a removable power must be built as a Focus? My point is that it takes truly exceptional levels of damage to significantly impact IM's powers. Damage on the level of GM Plot Device. Not only that, but the majority of the time the damage to one of IM's powers is not absolute and Stark has managed to get powers back up and running in the middle of combat; something else one cannot do with a Focus without carrying a backup. Finally, you have not addressed the following: In what way does breakability fall outside the purview of OIHID? Do you think it makes the limitation too severe? If that's the case, then why does an Unbreakable Focus have the same value as a Breakable Focus? The HSR itself lists powered armor as a valid effect for OIHID. Does that mean that powered armor built that way can never be damaged? How about a gun that always teleports back into it's user's hand at a mere thought? It can't be effectively taken away from it's owner, so it can't qualify as a Focus. Is this gun now automatically unbreakable as well, even though that makes no sense based on special effects?

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID I agree that in some cases powered armor may be better bought as OIF. I don't agree that's the case for Iron Man, however. Every time I've seen Iron Man's armor broken, it's because Iron Man was being attacked by something exceptionally powerful (like the Hulk who's at the top end of marvel's non-cosmic power scale), Tony overloading/overstressing the armor (possibly an Aid to the armor or extra points of power bought w/ a severe Side Effect) or it was a technological device/power specifically designed to damage/destroy other hi-tech devices (modeled best as dispel/suppress/etc). I disagree. In what way does breakability fall outside the purview of OIHID? Do you think it makes the limitation too severe? If that's the case, then why does an Unbreakable Focus have the same value as a Breakable Focus? The HSR itself lists powered armor as a valid effect for OIHID. Does that mean that powered armor built that way can never be damaged? I fail to see how something being breakable automatically means that it must be a Focus or a Vehicle. How about a gun that always teleports back into it's user's hand at a mere thought? It can't be effectively taken away from it's owner, so it can't qualify as a Focus. Is this gun now automatically unbreakable as well, even though that makes no sense based on special effects? That brings me back to the Accessibility issue, which no one has yet satisfactorily addressed. Iron Man's armor cannot be removed within 12 seconds out of combat without it's wearer's cooperation. That is where Iron Man's armor fails the Focus test. OIHID is our best alternative in that case. Weather you consider the armor's breakability to qualify it for Restrainable is far more debatable, though I don't believe it does and have stated why elsewhere in the thread.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID Special Effect: Fire can accidentally set flamable things on fire. Should all fire-based powers be bought w/ Side Effects, Effects the Environment Near the Character, etc.? Otherwise you're applying a limitation without giving any points back for it.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID They may even out points-wise, but they aren't the same by the rules. The OIF version can be removed in 12 seconds out of combat. The OIHID + Restrainable cannot. Also, I don't think the fact that it can be damaged should really qualify it for the Restrainable limitation (unless it's listed as part of the Restrainable description; I don't have my book with me), because a breakable Focus has the exact same value as an unbreakable one (baring the Fragile Lim). The important thing to remember is that a breakable Focus is easier to replace/repair than an unbreakable one. Similar logic can be applied to OIHID in that an OIHID power that is breakable by special effect should be relatively easy to repair/replace. In Iron Man's case, he always has spare suits of armor laying around; either older models (slight power decrease) or the new model he's been working on (ep expenditure). The only real requirement is that he be able to get back to base or have the armor shipped to him.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

Re: Y R axes better than swords??? One of the ways I've thought about dealing with all of this is by taking the FH weapons and grouping them into 4 different damage effects: Blunt, Chopping, Piercing and Slashing. Then, rework the armor writeups so that they have different ratings vs. each damage type. On the weapons side, each weapon would have a Primary damage type. In some cases (like swords or Axe/Hammer or Hammer/Pick combo heads) there would be an additional damage type that may or may not have the same DC. Slashing weapons would have the highest total DC, but most rigid armors would have their highest DEF vs. slashing anyway (slashing may also be defined as Reduced Pen vs. hard armors, but I'm not sure). Chopping & Blunt would be in the same basic DC range. Piercing would probably have the lowest DC range, but some of those weapons would get the AP advantage (like the pick or armor piercing arrow heads). So, an Axe might be 1.5d6 HKA chopping with the possiblilty of an opposing hammer head that was 1d6 HKA blunt w/ a +1 Stun Multiple. A Broadsword could be 2d6 HKA slashing and 1d6 piercing. Plate armor might be rated as 6B/8C/11P/14S. So, it would take a fairly strong person to get through plate w/ a broadsword, but they'd have a slightly easier time w/ the Axe/Hammer combo. I'd also considered giving each armor slightly lower resistant DEF but adding a small amount of normal defense to help deal with the always-kocked-out-but-never-dead problem that comes up in some folks FH campaigns. Of course, all the above stats are just pulled out of the thin air at the top of my head, but you get the basic idea. I'd also thought about rating armor vs. other common special effects (heat, electricity, acid, etc.). As for the penalties of wearing armor, I thought about PER penalties & counting significant amounts of armor as being 1 or 2 steps higher on the heat effects chart at the back of the book (I can't remember the title of the table), to represent how hot and fatiguing all that stuff gets. Of course, I've had this idea since shortly after 5E came out and have been thus far too lazy to actually do anything about it.