PeterLind

Here is the no-frills Character Sheet that I created for my game.  Please feel free to improve and modify, and I hope someone does so . . .
Champions Now Char Sheet_1.xlsx

Yes I think you have it about right.  I was taking a look at the weapons table in Champions 3E and thinking that a straight conversion of 1d6KA to 3d6 Piercing would be a bit high.  So I think you have it right at 2d6.  
 
As for detailed list of weapons?  Not really what I am looking for.  The list of guns in Champions 3E works for me, where a gun is described as "pistol," "heavy pistol," etc.  Thanks.

This is a write-up/conversion of Starburst, from the 3E rulebook to Champions Now:
 
2d6 STR 0 pts.
2d6 PRE  0 pts.
10 DEF 0 pts.
0 Resist. DEF 0 pts.
13 Body 30 pts.
3 Speed 20 pts.
13 DEX 20 pts.
11 INT 0 pts.
11 Ego 0 pts.
13 Recovery --
13 Stunned --
26 Knockout --
39 END --
Total Char: 70
 
Computer Programming 5 pts.
+1 Skill Level with Blast 5 pts.
 
Multiform 65 point reserve = 65 pts.
Slot - Blast (light energy) 9d6 = 9 pts.
Slot - Flash vs. sight 3d6 Explosion (+1/2) = 9 pts.
Slot - Flight 45 hexes = 9 pts.
Slot - Force Field 18 DEF = 9 pts.
Slot - "Starburst" - 6d6 Blast + 1d6 Flash Explosion (+1/2), Burnout 11- (-1/2) = 8 pts.
 
Special Defense vs. Flash 5 pts.
 
Total Skills & Powers:  124
 
Total Points 194
 

In terms of recoveries, one thing we noticed with Champions Now is that there is no risk of losing your recovery.  This is unlike regular Champions, where if you are hit on the same segment/phase while recovering, you end up losing your recovery.  Hope this helps.  

Something I would like to see:  a conversion of the weapons and armor tables in Champions 3E, pp. 83-85, to Champions Now.  

> That is another form of fudging <
 
Perhaps another way to put it is that the GM is using a die roll to determine a degree of success.  This is not fudging, which is to ignore or modify a die result.  I suggest that this is more in line with the GM's role, as a judge and a storyteller, to determine the result of a player's action in game.  

Yes that sounds great.  Something like this:  When the heroes are investigating something, consider putting your useful information/clues into tiers.  "We search the apartment."  This kind of thing will result in obtaining some useful information, if it is there, regardless.  However, something hidden might be discovered with a successful die roll.  Hence, the game doesn't stall just because of a bad roll.  Just my two cents and I am sorry if this is a slight divergance . .
 
To get to the main point.  IMO, the genre emulation can be readily handled through role-playing.  On one hand, we have the players and what is called "player agency."  On the other hand we have the GM, and the course of the game, the "narrative", whatever you want to call it.  If I have things correctly, the basic purpose of a HAP/metacurrency would be for the players to start taking on the GM's role, and to start determining the narrative.  I am not persuaded, yet, that this is really a necessary thing, but I remain open to some kind of optional rule that will make things fun and interesting at the game table.

Scott has raised some very good points, IMO.  If there was some kind of metacurrency, I would suggest being careful in implementation.
 
> I have been in that exact same scenario, but the adventure had multiple points of failure. <
 
Using the Mechanon narrative above, suppose the heroes fail all of their rolls, which would ordinarily be interpreted as "failure" according to the rules.  How would you as a GM handle it?  Would you treat the heroes as having failed in the scenario?   Would you take some narrative license?  If a kind of metacurrency was available and used by the players, would this enhance the play experience at the table?  Or be more trouble that it is worth?  

I have added DEX to the Crusader write-up above.  Thanks . . .:)
 
I was able to run a Champions Now game yesterday for 4 players, all Champions veterans.  I had 4 pre-made sample characters (one of them was Crusader above), of which 2 were taken without modification, one was modified, and one was created new.  The players were ready to go in about 30 minutes and we had a good time. . . )
 
EDIT:  Anyways, if I see a new thread, I can post them there . . . so who makes the first move?

Here's a few that I have run across:
 
Autofire NND
Area Effect Telekinesis
Being able to attack while desolid
 
I'm sure there are others . . . as a group, we just decided not to use game-breaking combinations.  

I just played in a Champions game where the GM announced a house rule at the start that the "CON-STUNNING" rule would not be used.  The reason he gave was that it could speed up the game.  I think that this worked out fine . . . and we were able to complete two major combats in one game session . . .

The rules may not be perfect, but so long as everyone at the table plays by them, it can still be fun.  The first character I played back in the day was a martial artist with no resistant defenses.  Back then, killing attacks were not so common (pre-Iron Age) and they were used only when appropriate.  When confronted by enemies/agents with killing attacks, I would have the character respond appropriately -- move to another part of the battlefield, use a martial block or dodge, etc.  This character made it to 90 xp and was retired, but not killed.
 
I found a little solution that works for me from looking into old wargames.  I found an old wargame that involved miniatures battles between barbarian warriors and roman legionnaires.  The barbarians would use a normal 1d6 roll for attack resolution and the romans would use a 1d6 'averaging' die.  This six-sided die hits the averages but not the extremes, and is arranged like this:  2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5.  I thought that if this could be used as a stun modifier (1d6-1), you get a range of 1-4, which still preserves the original 2.5 average.  Also, you have only a 1 in 6 chance for a "1" result and a 1 in 6 chance for "4" result.  This gives you some of that range but avoids the extreme results we would sometimes see.  Not a perfect solution by any means, but preserves some of the original game play and takes care of two issues:  1) eliminates the "5" stun mod possibility which may discourage meta-play for the stun lottery, 2) eliminates the 2 in 6 chance  of getting a "1" stun mod, which helps those "unlucky" folks who tend to roll those low stun mods . . .  I was able to get a set of 4 of these "averaging dice" from amazon for pretty cheap . . .

>How would you apply the penetrating advantage to killing attacks using proposed idea of treating them like unresistable normal damage?<
What he said . . . the averaging die would only be for the stun modifier.  I have picked up the "ivory" colored die so that it looks different and can be rolled at once . . . they are currently available for $7.30 from amazon:
 
https://www.amazon.com/WCXXQ2100E4-Numbers-Averaging-2-3-3-4-4-5-Chessex/dp/B010QI01BS/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=chessex%2C+averaging+dice&qid=1574365513&s=toys-and-games&sr=1-2
 
A couple of anecdotes:  After 6e came out, I started using the D3 stun modifier when I ran my 4e/5e Champions games.  But in a recent game, since it involved some powerful heroes and villains, I announced at the beginning that we would go back to the D6-1 stun modifier because it was a "high entropy" game. No one had a problem with that.  Then more recently, I played in a heroic/street level game where the GM announced a house rule at the beginning:  No Hit Locations, Killing Attacks are at a x2 stun modifier.  No one had a problem with that.  Then on the same day, for a Champions game, the GM announced a house rule at the beginning. Killing Attacks are at a x3 multiplier.  In this game, there was a villain with a high powered rifle that started sniping . . . so we started looking for cover . . . Again, no one had a problem with this . .   we just play accordingly and still have a good time.  . .