ghost-angel

Well, generally, yes - Accidental Change only works if you have purchased some other Form (most commonly Multiform) to change to/from. Other 'alternate form' powers would be Shape Shift, any set of powers defined with Only In Alternate ID, or a set of powers with Unified on them with SFX of changing forms. If you have a Super that 'turns normal' when KO'd you're going to have to define what aspects are Normal and what are Super, and likely attach appropriate Limitations to them.

You're reading it incorrectly. Across the board. But, hey, you're welcome.

You apply the modifiers of the Maneuvers you are using then you apply the modifier of Multiple Attack on top of the rest of them. It's nested.

Just a note: at the 10point level, Defensive Maneuver does not cost 1/2Phase, and operates outside Combat.

I probably am mixing them... The point is - I don't think a Multiple Attack should come with the DCV Penalty. I personally think the very idea of using two attacks in a Phase is part of the base assumption of the system.

Sure you can, PSLs are used to buy off OCV penalties. For instance if you buy Two-Weapon Fighting it removes the first -2 OCV penalty from Multiple Attack.

If you know the phone number, without getting overly complicated, for game purposes: Hack the telephone carrier for the ANI, use the ANI in the system to track last known Cell Tower Ping, find that cell phones ID via that (probably a combination of skills related to however you handle hacking systems in your game), track via GPS (detect radio, GPS signals). Basically the telephone company already does all this - hack them.

Given the broad nature, you're going to want that at at least 20- or 25- to overcome large penalties to the roll. While I'll agree Analyze won't give a Reason, or motivation (the Why) - it can certainly give a How to something. . . Analyze Fighting Style will give a how someone fights easily enough.

eepjr24's first breakdown is a really good one... It might be worth working out the idea of -10% of AP per Charge used... of course you never get more than 10 Charges, so perhaps a floor of 20% (-80%) for this. Each charge after the first loses a percentage of it's Active Points as you go, but you can theoretically have a large number of charges (if you buy a Power with 22 Charges you should still be able to use this idea). I wonder if maybe this was made into it's own Limitation with a standardized Recovery rate (similar recovery to Chargers, let's say); so this could be used on any power... Cool idea.

Here's how I would have constructed Multiple Attack: The baseline assumption should be you can use two or more Attacks per Phase. If that feels unbalanced, Two Attacks per Phase is the maximum (though Linked staking then becomes a problem, though easily controlled by the GM; but I like to assume Anything Is Possibly Until Campaign Limitations Restrict Them). Linked forces two attacks to be used together (or really the Secondary Attack can't be used without the Primary), and proportionately unless you buy the Limitation without that. The basic Limitation is that the two Attacks have to be used together, without it they can be used separately, otherwise there is no difference: you can attack a target with those two attacks either way. Now, separate targets: unlinked gives you the option to start hitting separate targets. Linked Attacks this is a straight Limitation. Personally, I think using two attacks on two targets should be straight OCV, no penalties (beyond Maneuver imposed ones). After that, I think a -2 Per Target, accumulative and to each attack, seems fair. Trying to hit 3 Targets? -2 OCV to each Attack. Linked, can't do this. Until you get to the Sweep Maneuver; where you can hit multiple targets with one Attack (or two Linked Attacks). Now there's no Linked Limitation, in fact it feels like an Advantage now: one attack roll for two attacks because one is Linked to the other, across all targets. So, some choices should be made, is Sweep a different enough concept that it should be broken out of Multiple Attack (which has so far in my thought process involved more than one attack against 1 or more targets) because it's one attack against multiple targets? Or should we try and create a consistent set of rules in Multiple Attack to handle this issue. It seems fair that it gets more difficult to hit every target after the first, so a -2 OCV seems fitting. But we've now run into the issue that above I felt -2OCV starting on Target 3 felt more fair, but here it's starting with Target 2. Furthermore, Sweeping should require targets to be adjacent to each other, while just Multiple Attacks should not... further creating the idea that perhaps these should be two separate concepts/maneuvers. So in the end: Multiple Attack - 1 or more attacks against 1 or more targets, at a -2 OCV per target after the 2nd. (plus standard maneuver penalties) Sweep - 1 or more attacks against 2 or more targets, which must be adjacent to each other, at a -2 OCV per target after the 2nd (for consistency sake). (plus standard maneuver penalties) This is more or less I feel where the rule should have landed. I'm sure were I to formally sit down and go over all the various situations that are currently outline there would be a bit of expansion and clarification. In any case, removing the DCV Penalty is definitely a thing I would do. (yeah, I've put some thought into this, I don't remember if any of this was brought up in the 6E committee discussions with Steve though...)

I consider it a terrible, and bad, design choice. That's my opinion of that ruling. That's all it is, my thoughts on this particular aspect of the rules.

That's why it's a Limitation - you limit the use. If you're limiting the use, then you have to assume removing the limitation is the baseline use. If the Limitation does not impose a 1/2DCV Penalty, the baseline unLimited version shouldn't either.

This is text, there is no tone. Read everything I write neutrally.

Yes. Overall Skill Levels can be used anywhere.

Until you realize I can add Linked, spend less points and all I lose is the ability to hit multiple targets... Or if I'm using Multiple Attack to simulate martial arts scenarios, where the very point of training is to not lose defense... Nope, it's just a bad design choice IMO. Terrible. And discourages the use of the Maneuver which can be very Heroic - the very style of play Hero is suppose to encourage.

Well... DCV 10: -2 then 1/2 = 4 1/2 then -2 = 3 DCV8: -2 then 1/2 = 3 1/2 then -2 = 2 Personally, I like RAW better, as Lucius noted, you're 1DCV higher. If it's because you're getting 2 modifiers to DCV because of the rules ... well ... that's why I don't like the 1/2DCV from doing a Multiple Attack. I feel it's punishing for no reason at all. Arbitrary rule is arbitrary.

I hate that Multiple Attack halves DCV. It's something so basic that it should just be part of the system, it circles back around to "If Linked is a Limitation, using two non-Linked Attacks should also be allowed normally."

You add up all the modifiers and apply them to all attacks. The -2 for each target after the first applies to all attack Rolls, the -2 for Move-By applies to all attack rolls. You're modifier is -4.

Funny you should mention the band aspect like this - the UK Indie Rock scene actually has to do with Which labels the bands used: not that they didn't use any labels. For a good part of 2000-2010ish "Indie Rock" would primarily refer to Independent Label, a small label not specifically owned by a larger label, especially one of the big 5. DIY musicians really didn't take off (though have always been around) until the rise of Bandcamp, Spotify, and Kickstarters, around 2010 or so. This is in juxtaposition to Alt Rock from the 80s and 90s which was a band that may or may not have had a major label, but was primarily either college radio play or no radio play (as opposed to Format Radio or Top-40 Radio); until the 90s where Alt Rock became a Radio Format of play, making the whole label a moot point. If we want to continue with that bad analogy, I would put Champions in the DOJ Era firmly in Indie Gaming as they weren't one of the big companies putting games out. In that vein IPR is definitely an Indie Label in modern parlance...

IMO "indie game" is a lot like "alt music" - a useless title that tells you nothing, makes someone sound pretentious, and ultimately fails to help anyone figure out if the product is any good at all.

If someone says "I'm going to use Transform for this, how will that affect things?" - we'd probably fall all over ourselves helping. But when someone has utter comprehension fail despite several people pointing out their misreading... well, we''ve got more interesting people to help.

The other option aside from Campaign Limits/Guidelines (a goo=d idea anyway), is to use the DCs Of Equipment Can't Be More Than Doubled. If the Gun is free stuff, there's an upper limit to it. If the gun is paid for.. well, back to Campaign Guidelines.

This isn't worth our time, another user in the block list.

Sorry mate, to Transform yourself into a Gargoyle use Shape Shift or Images. Transform very specifically, in short sentences no less, says not to use it on yourself. Full Stop. There's no Context here - don't use it on yourself, especially if another Power does the same thing. That's why the sentence was broken out without any other clauses to it. It's not a contradiction, its a condition. You can do whatever you want, but RAW is very clear on the topic: Transform cannot target the Self.

There becomes a point where in attempting to simulate certain things you create unplayability, or at least reduce the Heroic Fun. Besides, let's not get too realistic, Growth is designed to change your size - so we're already at the implausible right there.