Chris Goodwin

Also, too many 'conservatives' were perfectly happy to support Trump despite so many severe warning signs, and they got what I think they wanted the most:  the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.  Throwing Trump to the lions now is purely political calculus;  he can't give them *anything close* to similar value any more, and his cost has become too high.

Not until there have been meaningful consequences for the conspirators and the rioters.  
 
They don't get to try to overthrow the government and then fall back on weak cries of "but unity!"  They wanted unity, they should have supported and defended the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, like they put up their right hands and swore to, not join those enemies.  
 
No unity with traitors.

I was specifically calling out federal elected officials, including POTUS, but also people like the Air Force veteran who died when she was shot, storming the Capitol as well as other veteran and active duty personnel.  I am also an Air Force veteran, and that made me sick.

First, can we define who "THEY" is? Because, maybe I misread Cancer, but I thought he meant Americans with a conservative bent and often rural background. Others seem to be defining THEY to those who stormed the white house in a seditious act, and it's a mistake to assume all of the former are the same mindset as the latter. 
 
That said, yes, as a guy who voted for Bernie in the primaries I totally feel the frustration of being told that ideas I think are just  common sense and common decency are too big and unrealistic over and over. Be it from more moderate democrats or those voting republican.  I'm sure they're frustrated with me being so fussy about such.
 
You can want border security while recognizing that families being separated is wrong and without discouraging increased means for LEGAL immigration. 
You can be pro right to bear arms or even LIKE guns without being against waiting periods or background checks.
You can be against Free Trade set ups that seem to cost jobs at home without being xenophobic.
 
Some folks are treating ANYONE with a conservative leaning as if they're cheering Trump on, and that is delusional and destructive in a time when we're already loaded up on destructive delusion in this country and we don't need more.
 

The one thing a tolerant society must not tolerate is intolerance.

Not until there have been meaningful consequences for the conspirators and the rioters.  
 
They don't get to try to overthrow the government and then fall back on weak cries of "but unity!"  They wanted unity, they should have supported and defended the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, like they put up their right hands and swore to, not join those enemies.  
 
No unity with traitors.

Yesterday's episode of The Daily (the NYTimes radio show) featured the reporters who've followed the Trumpist "Stop the Steal" movement since the election. They say people were talking about storming the Capitol weeks ago, setting up carpools so people could bring their guns without being blocked by airlines, posting images of the carpools on social media saying "Here we are, armed, on our way to attack the government," etc. There would seem to be quite an adequate trail for the FBI.
 
OTOH they also explained some of the timidity of the Washington, DC and Capitol Police preparation. After views of Black Hawk helicopters menacing BLM protesters went around the world, there was some serious fear of backlash if they made a show of force and nothing happened. Apparently not realizing that there might be a significant difference between people with the avowed goal of peaceful protest, and people with the avowed goal of overturning the election through at least the threat of violence.
 
Also, on All Things Considered: Dem senator asks Capitol police why they aren't arresting more people as they clear the Capitol. Senator said they told him they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I assume that's a free interpretation of what they actually said. Maybe there's even good reasons for it, but it's still disappointing.
 
Segment on Georgia senatorial elections found that some Georgians were rather not charmed with Loeffler's "More conservative than Attila the Hun!" slogan. I'm speculating here, but just possibly comparing yourself to a marauding, scorched-earth destroyer doesn't fly well in the state that remembers the burning of Atlanta and Sherman's march to the sea. Who knew?
 
Also, some Georgians interviewed say they like splitting the ticket and divided government. With Loeffler and Perdue both claiming to be Trump rubber-stamps, some Georgians saw no need to elect both of them.
 
Dean Shomshak

Only one side of the dispute has broadly embraced deceit, fear, and hatred. There will be no meaningful discourse while that is in play. It can only be opposed.

Yesterday was full of shocking, disgusting events.
 
But the worst, for me, was the parade of House members promoting multiple objections to the election results *after* the invasion.  I believe the final count was 137 House Republicans who voted to sustain the objection to the Pennsylvania electors.  That's a major warning shot across the bow, to me, saying they'll be as obstinate and obstructionist as the rules of the House allow, through the 2022 election.  It's also a major warning that Trumpism isn't going away at all;  that's just too much widespread support.
 
In the Senate, I suspect that Cruz and Hawley are likely to be the point men on things like impeding nominees, if nothing else.  The fact that most Senate Republicans rejected the push to overturn the election is encouraging, but Cruz and Hawley have shown they'll pander to Trump's base, and there's no reason to think they'll slow down.

Before the US entered WW1, there was a conversation between the German foreign minister and James Gerard, the US ambassador to Imperial Germany, where the foreign minister threatened the ambassador with half a million armed German-Americans in the US who would carry out a violent uprising if the US entered the war against Germany.
 
Reflexively, Gerard replied, "In that case, we have half a million lampposts to hang them from."
 
I am willing to allow the orange tub of lard to crawl off to his bunker with his PPK and do as his spiritual role model did when reality finally overrode what his toadies could tell him.
 
And that's where my thinking is now. 

Check out Joe Scarborough's rant about the failure of the Capitol Police during yesterday's riot. I won't post a link because he dropped the f-bomb during his show, but he's asking a lot of the questions I'm asking. 
 
I don't think I've been this mad since 9/11. This will also leave a scar on the nation, but it will be deeper because it is a self-inflicted wound. 
 
And despite Trump's comments about having a peaceful transfer of power, I suspect he still has some mischief in mind. And the damage has already been done. 
 

Now there are reports of some police helping the protesters, opening barricades and even taking selfies with them. When I first heard this claim on TV, I had to verify this online. To be fair, more officers did their job. However, there should have been more preparation, and this was clearly a failure in security procedure.
 
Now the death toll has risen to four people.
 
Why does this get to me so badly? As Former President Bush said, this is how a banana republic disputes elections. I have lived in a dictatorship. My family came to the USA to get away from all that. Now it seems the current administration has been acting the way dictators do. It's pretty overwhelming.

In a heroic campaign where no points are paid for weapons (and where they have the STR Minimum and Real Weapon Limitations by default), the "base damage" for the weapon is its listed damage value (6e2 p. 99 under Toolkitting); its maximum damage is limited to double its base damage no matter how many methods are used to add damage (6e2 p. 199 under STR Minimum and 6e2 p. 201 under Real Weapon).  
 
Since you mention that it's a Heroic campaign, I'm starting with the assumption that the weapons in question are taken from a list (either in one of the books or provided by the GM), that the characters don't pay points for them, and that they include the STR Minimum and Real Weapon Limitations.  The base damage would therefore be that of the weapon (2d6 in our case), and damage added by all other sources (including STR, Martial Arts Damage Classes, maneuvers, Skill Levels, Weapon Master) count toward its doubled maximum (which would be 4d6).  The GM is given the option to allow more than double, at the risk of damaging the weapon; both STR Minimum and Real Weapon specify that the weapon would take the full amount of damage the weapon does to the target, and so would probably break.  
 
(A fist does not count as a Real Weapon for purposes of that Limitation, and is typically not considered to fall under the "double base damage" rule in any case; a fist's "base damage" is equal to the character's STR, along with any purchased Martial Arts DCs or Hand-to-hand Attack.)
 
I hope this answers your question; if not, feel free to follow up with another Rules Question.   

In a heroic campaign where no points are paid for weapons (and where they have the STR Minimum and Real Weapon Limitations by default), the "base damage" for the weapon is its listed damage value (6e2 p. 99 under Toolkitting); its maximum damage is limited to double its base damage no matter how many methods are used to add damage (6e2 p. 199 under STR Minimum and 6e2 p. 201 under Real Weapon).  
 
Since you mention that it's a Heroic campaign, I'm starting with the assumption that the weapons in question are taken from a list (either in one of the books or provided by the GM), that the characters don't pay points for them, and that they include the STR Minimum and Real Weapon Limitations.  The base damage would therefore be that of the weapon (2d6 in our case), and damage added by all other sources (including STR, Martial Arts Damage Classes, maneuvers, Skill Levels, Weapon Master) count toward its doubled maximum (which would be 4d6).  The GM is given the option to allow more than double, at the risk of damaging the weapon; both STR Minimum and Real Weapon specify that the weapon would take the full amount of damage the weapon does to the target, and so would probably break.  
 
(A fist does not count as a Real Weapon for purposes of that Limitation, and is typically not considered to fall under the "double base damage" rule in any case; a fist's "base damage" is equal to the character's STR, along with any purchased Martial Arts DCs or Hand-to-hand Attack.)
 
I hope this answers your question; if not, feel free to follow up with another Rules Question.   

Time machine to a stone age world.  Return with a bumblebee inside a clamshell.

Indeed, therein lies the challenge.  And I got Brian for you as well (that's one of two he deserves, though).

I would totally agree here, except that I once saw Ernie solve the problem of "not eating crackers in your bed" by eating crackers in Bert's bed instead. Some crackers (albeit very few) really do matter to some beds.
 
But in the spirit of your overall message, we do in fact tend to take ourselves waaaaay to seriously in these discussions, and probably do deserve to sleep in the beds we make for ourselves, crackers or no. 

You don't, at least not as part of a convenient dashboard (which I take as more proof that whoever set up these fora initially-- presumably Dan, but I don't know) didn't find upvote / downvote ratings any more important than I do).  The only reason I happened to notice is because of this very thread.  Up above, I wasn't kidding when I said the ratings thing doesn't matter to me: I know who I have fun discussing X with, and who I enjoy discussing Y with, and have a rough idea what things are which persons "buttons" and I _try_ to not push them.
 
That's about it.  If you've ever noticed, when you're out here reading and posting, you can't even see your own numbers.  (Right now, I can see Tribble's and Scott's above me, but not mine).  You can log out, find a post by you, and see them that way, or you can go to your profile  and see them (and really, I rarely go to my profile, what with all those handy buttons at the top of the page to go directly to where I want to go on the board).
 
_However_, for the sake of this conversation and an answer I gave earlier, up above, I _did_ open my profile to check my numbers, partly because the question made me curious, and partly because I was really expecting a way-lower number, and I had hoped that I could use that information and my continued enjoyment of discussing things with you folks as a reassurance to the original poster that "crackers don't matter."  I had a bug-eye moment when I saw what the total was.
 
 
Anyway, when someone reacts to one of your posts, or quotes your posts, or does one of those "at so-and-so" thingies, you get a little pop-up (and kudos to whoever designed that: it's the first non-obtrusive, easy-to-ignore pop-up I have ever seen on a forum.  Good work; have and Attaboy as a sign of appreciation     ) if you're currently on the board, or, if you're just logging in, you get a different notification message--
 
anyway: when that get happens, I do get curious-- not about the vote itself, as I _genuinely_ do not care if someone who doesn't actually know me has decided to dedicate himself to absolutely _vilifying_ me to entire world: For one, he's not bothering some other person who I may actually like or someone whose skin may be a lot thinner than mine. For another, there is no better "reward" for that kind of pettiness than getting yourself worked into a tizzy so powerful that you are willing to waste time-- even one precious second of the only life you will live on earth-- being 'that kind of guy.'  All in all, I find it to be quite balancing, and sort of a proof that your own existence isn't that important to you, either.  So if you're not important to _you_, who the Hell do you think you should be to _me_?         
 
Gah--!
 
I'm sorry, N-B: when something is really funny, it's easier for me to get side-tracked into enjoying it.  My apologies.      Back on track:
 
Just a day or two ago, I had looked at my actual whatever-it-is-you-call-that-green-number-under-your-avatar.  Last night, as I was cruising the board before I logged in, I noticed that number had gone up by 1.  I found a thread I wanted to reply to and logged in, at which time I got a notification that I had three notifications.  I clicked the little bell at the top of the screen and got the notifications:  three different people had reacted to three different posts.  As my little green number had gone up by 1, clearly there had been two positives (a "thank you" or a "like" or a "laugh" or anything that was not a "sad" or a "downvote," both of which deduct from that number) and one negative.
 
I also noticed that one of the replies was both in one of the MHI threads-- about the book itself, not the game-- _and_ was by someone I had never heard of.   Since the entire "it was a hoax / it was a travesty / it was a fraud / it was real / it was the people proving what they want / your-nonsense-here situation that invariably becomes the focus of any thread dealing with the author of that book brings out the pettiness of people unable to accept that time moves forward without cessation, and the person posting the reaction was someone I had never heard of, it was really to determine both where the downvote was _and_ just how many craps I gave. 
 
The other two were Lord Liaden and Spence, both in current threads that I was still participating in, so I opened both of those threads in the hopes that they had posted and added someone to the conversation.   .   Why?  Why, when I claim that crackers don't matter?!   Well, it's true: crackers _don't_ matter.  However, those are both people I enjoy conversing with, and the _silent_ notification you can pull from the written one is "someone whose opinion, even when different from yours, usually proves quite insightful is currently interested in and may have added to a conversation that you are currently enjoying."
 
What's not to love?!      Honestly, that's the part of the ratings  / voting system that _is_ important to me!    
 
 
 
Hugh, this is one of those times when I am in _total_ agreement with you, Sir!
 
it didn't take long, way back when, to realize that you only get-- I don't know: let's say ten (see my comments on this up above) or so of these every 24 hours. I started to get _stingy_ with them!  "Oh, these things are important!  Super important!"
 
Then two things happened:
 
We had a couple of people who were- to be generous-- potentially bipolar, who would swing from participating in every conversation to just attacking and downvoting every post that disagreed with their own.
 
That was Thing One, and I confess, those couple of guys were the only people I ever wasted a slot on-- not for me, mind you: I can't over-stress how much I am not bothered by "this guy doesn't like me!"  I've got twelve younger siblings, for Pete's sake!  I don't have any feelings left!  They were burned out _decades_ ago!  But Thing One did lead me to use downvotes on occasions when one of these two guys would just tear into someone else without any provocation.  I think I'd passed out about 4 downvotes when I thought "this is stupid.  If they don't bother me-- a typically upbeat, social, outgoing and well-adjusted person, why do I think someone who clearly has a legitimate psychological problem is going to be bothered?  And whatever kind of thing might be helpful to such a person, _this_ isn't it!  I mean this _really_ isn't it!"
 
So I quit.  This was actually hard to do.  Obviously, none of you were part of my youth.  It's a pity, because we'd have had _so_ much time to game together!   
 
I used to get in _lots_ of trouble at school as a kid.  I got in my first fight in third grade, and by the time I got out of high school-- well, I couldn't tell you how many there were, but Sam (yeah: I was in front of the principal often enough that he got tired of me calling him Mr. K__ and we moved to that first-name relationship) showed me my "discipline file."  It was impressively thick-- nearly two inches.   We had a long talk that particular afternoon, because he wanted to know how I could end up in so many fights and not actually _start_ any of them. The only reason I hadn't been expelled was because _no one_ had ever seen me start a fight. 
 
It's pretty simple.  I'm an anti-bully.  The high school councilor tried to use the phrase "hero complex," so I spent days in the library looking into that (because I have that problem, too), and proved to him that he was completely wrong.  I have no need to be a hero or to be acknowledge or anything like that.  What I have is a complete unwillingness to let someone attack someone else.  Maybe it's because I've been a de facto parent my entire life, and just in the habit of looking out for those I consider to be close to me or under-defended against an attacker; I don't know.  But seeing someone else get attacked for no reason (seriously:  if you're getting your butt kicked because of something that you did, I don't care if you're Steve Buscemi and the guy jumping you is Mike Tyson, you had it coming) just flips a switch in me, and that made it really hard to swear off the downvotes.  What finally did it was the realization that the guy (well "guys;" at the time there were two of them) I was pegging with downvotes really did show evidence of actual _problems_.  Downvotes weren't going to do anything to stop the behavior, and the implied insult of them might make it worse.  (for what it's worth, I haven't see one in _years_, and the other in months.  I hope they got help, or at least found healthier places to hang out.  I've read that online social media can lead to and worsen depression and other problems in some sorts of people.)
 
 
Hell, there's a still a few semi-regulars-- folks that drop in, make a big splash, then disappear for a while-- that trigger me.  I got one of my [gothic voice] Permanent Demerits[/gothic voice] for refusing to be insulted by one known to bully those whose opinions differ from his own.   Oddly, he's got an extremely high green number.  Given the backhanded insults-to-posts ratio, he's also the greatest proof on this board that crackers absolutely do _not_ matter.   
 
 It's not a hero complex; it's an anti-bully complex.      Remember, kids: bullying is wrong, and you will be punished for refusing to allow it to continue (I know: I've been in trouble for standing up to it my whole life).   Now go out there and write those articles and blog posts and news stories complaining that we don't understand why it continues even to this most-enlightened of all days.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
I didn't, either!  
 
Then, the same time I realized that downvotes had only two outcomes:  worsening someone who might actually need help, or as a tool to spread animosity (or a tool of actual bullying), I also realized that a limited number of votes of any kind imbued them with a special property.  Think about it with a comic book example (this should be awesome, considering that the majority of things I know about comics came from spectating conversations on these boards   )
 
In all the universe, there are like eight people who can use Thor's hammer (apparently.  Unless it's ten thousand.  or Two.  Or whatever the story needs at that moment.)  There are ten (maybe) votes I can spend in a day.
 
I opted to use them as a means of saying "This content is worthy."
 
I also use them as "thanks for participating in something we are all enjoying," but I make it a point to spend _all_ my allotted points.  Those that don't go as "I really appreciate this" go to posts specifically to say "This is worthy.  Please keep doing this.  Be a solid example."
 
 
That's why I don't have them on tap all the time:
 
So many worthy people here.
 

 
 
 
 

Time machine to a stone age world.  Return with a bumblebee inside a clamshell.

There's no doubt that keeping a group is the hardest thing about face-to-face gaming, and it becomes more difficult the older you get:  first there's "adult things" that start getting in the way-- work, overtime, rescheduling, marriage--
 
There there are spousal things; then there are childcare things, then you cruise along for a couple of years and then there are medical things....
 
 
Yeah; it's not easy.   I won't lie: mostly, I've just been very, very fortunate with my groups.
 
 

I have absolutely no idea.  You'd have to ask Simon.
 
I'd recommend against doing that, though.
 
 
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone here takes these ratings too seriously.  There aren't as many regulars left as there once where, and we all know who's who, who we enjoy talking with and about what.  The ratings just aren't that important.  I mean, I just looked at mine and noticed I'm pushing 2900, and I'm a complete jackass!
 
Figure that a ton of folks here really only participate in certain kinds of discussions-- politics, jokes, etc-- and the data determined by glancing at the ratings is meaningless in terms of trying to determine if this person is a "real contributor" or "super nice" or just what.
 
So consider perhaps looking at it the way I do:
 
I have around 10 of these every day, and only around 10 (I swear to you, every time I try to figure it out, I forget I'm supposed to be tracking them before I run out, but ten feels like a safe-ish guess) every 24 hours.
 
So I should try to really only give them out as a really _special_ kind of "Wow!  Thanks!  I am in a better place for having read that!" kind of acknowledgement.  It doesn't slight anyone (unless you've put up the Downvote or the frowning "sad" face, which each deduct from poster's rep count.
 
 
I mean, it _could_ be just a default that was never toggled to something else, but even if that's the case, it just kind of drives home that we don't really put a lot of stock in it (Heck-- a year or two ago we had a lot of fun on a thread dedicated to down voting each other.    ).
 
Anyway, welcome aboard!  You'll like it here: we have Canadians.
 
 

 
 

It's really up to the GM what kind of ranged attack meets the definition of "ranged Strike".  A HTH Strike can be a punch, kick, knee strike, and so on; it can be based on a character's STR alone, or STR plus Hand-to-hand Attack, or STR plus Martial Arts DCs.  All of the Martial Arts maneuvers with "Strike" in the name (Defensive Strike, Killing Strike, Martial Strike, Nerve Strike, Offensive Strike) all qualify as HTH Strikes, as do melee weapon attacks.  You're specifically asking about ranged Strikes, though.  Called out in the definition that you quoted are guns and longbows.  Those definitely count as ranged Strikes.  But what else might? 
 
The key here is that 2-point Combat Skill Levels with a particular Strike (punches, or broadswords, or any particular other type of Strike) apply to OCV only, so the 3-point levels with "all HTH Strikes" or "all Ranged Strikes" should also apply to OCV only.  Keeping that in mind, I'm going to fall back on letting the GM decide exactly which kinds of ranged attacks fall into the definition, based on the trio of common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects.  
 
Also note that when Steve Long is able to return and answer rules questions, his response supersedes mine.    

Assuming you mean using the Barrier Power, bought to sufficient size to englobe multiple targets, I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent it.  For targeting purposes, treat it as if it were an Area of Effect attack (6e2 p. 40 for specifics).

See?  No one plays the same game, no matter how many more rules get packed into the game.       I don't use that particular option.
 
The same way E assumes learning magic involves combat training (which, I confess, put some really amusing images in my head trying to combine "let's build a road through this swamp, but we'll need to add some combat practice" and "okay, these guys are here to fire cannon, whack you with sticks, push you around, and throw spears.  No matter how difficult that is, do _not_ let them get pregnant" from the other thread     .  Again, because it seems to be the only way people communicate anymore:  _not_ sarcasm.  I'm trying to share two brain pictures that gave me a good laugh),   I have always assumed--
 
No; that's not right.  It's not an assumption, per se;  it's part of several of my magic systems over the years:  magic users learn the spell.  That is they practice the spell, and they get better with the spell, and they (eventually, through experience), are able to create and cast larger, more powerful and variant versions of the spell.  Ultimately, it means there's no place for that particular option in the bulk of my magic systems.  In some, yes-- particular in the ones where I want to keep magic tightly regulated and on a level akin to a non-magical person having a really, _really_ good sword.
 
 
 
 
Now this I've always done-- I mean like since we started using Champions to emulate other genres.  It's part of the basic rules, and it never occurred to me that there might be a situation where it would _not_ apply to using a skill or taking a shot or whatever.  I _do_ make one exception, and that is the Extra Time Limitation
 
[digression: for magic, rather than calling it "Extra Time," I usually flavor it with descriptive titles such as "Ritual"  or "Complex Gestures" or "Component Arrangement" and things like that.  Yes; they are pretty much just "Extra Time," but for me, it's like naming Powers (and Spells), and I like the flavor.  Players seem to get into it, as well, with comments like "I start pouring my sulphur on the nearest stone and tracing the Seven Sigils"  instead of "I throw up the earth barrier spell for next Phase."
 

It's really up to the GM what kind of ranged attack meets the definition of "ranged Strike".  A HTH Strike can be a punch, kick, knee strike, and so on; it can be based on a character's STR alone, or STR plus Hand-to-hand Attack, or STR plus Martial Arts DCs.  All of the Martial Arts maneuvers with "Strike" in the name (Defensive Strike, Killing Strike, Martial Strike, Nerve Strike, Offensive Strike) all qualify as HTH Strikes, as do melee weapon attacks.  You're specifically asking about ranged Strikes, though.  Called out in the definition that you quoted are guns and longbows.  Those definitely count as ranged Strikes.  But what else might? 
 
The key here is that 2-point Combat Skill Levels with a particular Strike (punches, or broadswords, or any particular other type of Strike) apply to OCV only, so the 3-point levels with "all HTH Strikes" or "all Ranged Strikes" should also apply to OCV only.  Keeping that in mind, I'm going to fall back on letting the GM decide exactly which kinds of ranged attacks fall into the definition, based on the trio of common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects.  
 
Also note that when Steve Long is able to return and answer rules questions, his response supersedes mine.