DreadDomain

There is also Destined, a superhero roleplaying game based on Mythras (aka RuneQuest 6e) published in 2022.

There is also Destined, a superhero roleplaying game based on Mythras (aka RuneQuest 6e) published in 2022.

There is also Destined, a superhero roleplaying game based on Mythras (aka RuneQuest 6e) published in 2022.

That's ok, much better than Hero Machine art.

That's fair. I do not mind Hero Machine for a fan product. For a paid commercial product, I prefer no art over Hero Machine. But that's just me. 

Sadly, the answer has to be no. I only came to realize it a few months ago while answering "What are the Top 10 Tabletop Roleplaying Games of All Time (that you have personally played)?" on RPG.net. I instinctively started asking myself who would rank first, HERO or GURPS but when I went through the though process, the real question was if it would even finish second (it did) or would it slip to third.
 
No doubt I still love HERO but nowadays, if I want to play fantasy, modern action, supernatural horror, post-apocalypse, science-fiction, etc, I will probably consider one, two or half a dozen games before HERO. In the past many years, it was my go-to only when it comes to super but If I was to start a game now, I am not even sure I would choose it.
 
It also pains me to say that the last book published by HERO that I enjoyed and found "professionally" done was Golden Age Champions, must have been 5 years ago now.
 
If DOJ doesn't pick up their game, or sell the property to someone who will do the system justice, I am afraid the next time I answer a similar question in a few years, it may slip to third or maybe not even make the top 3.  

Straight off the bat, I believe 6E is the best edition of HERO mechanically. I would not say it is the best it could be, but it is better than the previous editions. Most of the problems I have with 6E are not mechanical but rather with presentation.
Presentation
Again, I will declare it from the start, I love the two big-blue 6E books. I find them beautiful and neat and as reference manuals, they are golden. When it comes to look at general rules though, Champions Complete or HERO Basic are much more convenient.  Behold hindsight 20/20, with better production value (and completeness for Basic) they could have been the equivalent of HERO Rulebook and Champions BBB for 4E. I would have seen them both on glossy paper, full color and using the layout template 6E1 and 6E2 use while the two big books could have been softcover and black and white (what they now are in POD I suppose).   
But my main presentation problems in 6E are on the character sheets. The wall of characteristics is horrible and with just a better layout could be easily avoided. Categorizing them like it was previously suggested in this thread would go a long way to make them look less intimidating. At the very least, grouping them slightly differently (example below but somewhat messed up) would definitely help.
CHARACTERISTICS
STR           40       17-         STR Dice 9d6, Lift 6.4tons
DEX          36      16-
CON          19       13-
INT            18       13-         Perception Roll 13-
EGO          15       12-
PRE           13       12-         PRE Attack 2½d6
 
OCV           10             OMCV      3
DCV           12              DMCV      3
SPD              5              Phases     3, 5, 8, 10, 12
 
PD              12              Total         12 PD/0 rPD
ED               9               Total         9 ED/0 rED
REC           10               END         40
STUN         40               BODY       12     
 
MOVEMENT
Running 12m (24m)         Swimming 4m (8m)
Leaping 30m (60m)         Swinging 40m (80m)
 
Another issue brought up previously is how some powers were deconstructed and need now to be built from other powers. While I have no problem with the approach, I would have preferred if they would have defined and used a simplified nomenclature on published character sheets (basically what they did with Talents). A few basic write-ups would have benefited from it (Force Field, Instant Change, Transfer, Super-Running (you know, the one not built with Running but with Flight or Teleport), etc…). In short, I would have liked if they looked for a way to declutter the character sheets and make them look more appealing, more fun (and yes, I would be totally happy not seeing Real Cost per line item and the advantages and limitations +/- values).
Legacy
Another aspect that clearly irks long time HERO fans is the loss of some legacy components. The two examples constantly referred to are Comeliness and Figured Characteristics. In both cases, I was initially against their departure but after the fact, my opinion is that the game is better without them.
Comeliness was not doing much mechanically and every attempt I have seen to give it a purpose were heroic efforts for sure but ultimately unconvincing. I much, much prefer Striking Appearance as a mechanic. That being said, I agree that adding Comeliness in a sidebar as a potential new Characteristic would have been a must. It is clearly important to some of us and we should respect that.
Figured Characteristics were a tougher nut to crack. The challenge is to balance a linear point cost progression per characteristics with what is fundamentally a breakpoint progression of abilities. Some benefits of characteristics increase every +1 but others only in +2, +3 or +5 increments. GURPS can balance its Attributes with its Secondary Characteristics by the simple fact that most benefits progress on a +1 for +1 basis. ST is equally divided in three components, Lifting, Striking and Hit Points, +1 in ST means +1 in all three components and the sum cost of the three components equals the total cost for ST. Trying to balance that in HERO was next to impossible and at best could have been better approximated than in previous editions (this is what I was hoping for while 6E was being developed). In the end, figured characteristics were not figured anymore and it suddenly became much easier to build any concept desired without worrying with point efficiency.
But something was lost. Call it guidance or verisimilitude but the fact remains that a deeply entrenched paradigm, the relation between Characteristics and Figured was erased. Again, a few solutions were possible. First, a sidebar re-introducing Figured Characteristics with better balanced costs could have been added. Second, and even easier, a sidebar could have introduced “suggested values” for Secondary Characteristics based on Characteristics (example below).
  Base Cost Suggested Value OCV 3 5 DEX/3 DCV 3 5 DEX/3 OMCV 3 3 EGO/3 DMCV 3 3 EGO/3 PD 2 1 STR/5 ED 2 1 CON/5 SPD 2 10 1+DEX/10 REC 4 1 (STR+CON)/5 END 20 0.2 CONx2 BODY 10 1 10+STR/5 STUN 20 0.5 BODY+STR+CON)/2
 
From a cost perspective, nothing would change. You would still buy STR at 1 pts for +1 and no Secondary Characteristics would be automatically recalculated. If you wanted to bring your Secondary Characteristics in line with the suggested values, you would still need to buy them up. Suggested Values would simply give an indication of how the Characteristics could influence the Secondary Characteristics and the player would still have full power to buy them up their desired values based on their concept, may it be the suggested value or something else. Unless of course a campaign strictly enforces them.
I haven’t touched on mechanics at all in this post. Hopefully will have time to do so later.
 

Sadly, the answer has to be no. I only came to realize it a few months ago while answering "What are the Top 10 Tabletop Roleplaying Games of All Time (that you have personally played)?" on RPG.net. I instinctively started asking myself who would rank first, HERO or GURPS but when I went through the though process, the real question was if it would even finish second (it did) or would it slip to third.
 
No doubt I still love HERO but nowadays, if I want to play fantasy, modern action, supernatural horror, post-apocalypse, science-fiction, etc, I will probably consider one, two or half a dozen games before HERO. In the past many years, it was my go-to only when it comes to super but If I was to start a game now, I am not even sure I would choose it.
 
It also pains me to say that the last book published by HERO that I enjoyed and found "professionally" done was Golden Age Champions, must have been 5 years ago now.
 
If DOJ doesn't pick up their game, or sell the property to someone who will do the system justice, I am afraid the next time I answer a similar question in a few years, it may slip to third or maybe not even make the top 3.  

I almost agree with you.  But it is character creation that has been reviewed, deconstructed, balanced etc etc etc.  The game system itself is pretty much the same skeleton it was way back in the 1980s.
 
I love HERO, I think in these terms but I am seduced by the clever ways other games have of emulating comics in ways poor old 20th century HERO cannot.  There are dimensions that it does not address.
 
I am in the games powered by HERO camp, so I think each and every one of these games could innovate with the game system to achieve desirable genre emulation.  As long as every game had a designers booklet (freely available online or sold as a Designer's Insight booklet) to show how the toolbox was used, bent and added to, it fits with the HERO philosophy and folk like us could open up the bonnet, rip out a few bits, bend a few more, IF WE WANTED TO, to achieve good games at the table.

Until I started playing in a regular 6th edition Champions game, 3rd edition was my jam.  I played in a couple of sessions run by @lemming at GameStorm in 2018, which is where I realized that he was using writeups from 5th and 6th editions without alteration, and the transitions were seamless.  That's where I started thinking that editions don't matter.  
 
When I started playing 6th edition regularly it started growing on me, and I realized I was having as much fun with it as in the old days, and the experience of play was the same.  Counting out hexes of movement, rolling out damage and Knockback... all of that felt exactly the same.  
 
I'll admit that tactics might differ, and I've gone into a lot of detail about how the experience of building characters and taking them into play differs, but to be honest I have a hard time seeing it in actual play.  The END thing... if in 4th-6th you're spending 2-4 END a phase on movement and 6 END per attack... at SPD 5 that's 40-50 END per Turn, so you're going to start running into issues almost as much as in first gen.  
 
For Fantasy Hero I'd almost have to play the original.  I've only played a little bit of FH post-3rd, and it never felt right to me, feeling like Champions in armor and swords.  I'd have to give it a good try in a campaign.  
 
I ran a short campaign of Robot Warriors using 6th edition for characters and the original book for robots, plus my conversion document, and it played identically to the original.  From that I'd expect that a Danger International game using 6th edition but otherwise the same assumptions as the original (no Powers, no points charged for equipment) would play the same as the original as well.  I didn't play a lot of Justice Inc. and no Star Hero (lots of SF-nal DI though), so I can't really speak to those, but I'd have to expect again that with the right initial assumptions it should play close enough.  
 
As far as editions, I don't think I really gave 4th a fair shake.  I played lots of 4th edition Champions, but I never really got over the rules changes that seemed unnecessary to me.  Point cost changes in powers I could deal with, but the big ones were the changes to END cost, Range Modifiers, and Disadvantage cost structure... and those don't bother me now for some reason.  I'm not sure why.  I played a total of one session of 5th (Fantasy Hero), and it just reinforced my feeling of it being Champions with horses and swords and shields.  

Yes, we are on the same wavelength here.

Modern Design Philosophy, to me at least, is emulating the genre you're depicting. Look at several of the games on the market these days... D&D, Pathfinder, various 2d20 systems, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. Many of these games have a sleek design that incorporates color well, and emulates the genre they're set in. Font choices come into play here, as do layout designs, stat block design, images... the overall construction of the book looks pleasing to the eye, and, in some cases more interesting. Pathfinder is a big stand out for me. While I don't play 2nd ed or Starfinder, the books are gorgeous! Easily something you can just flip through and get some basic ideas behind the game visually. I just don't see that in Hero, no matter the book I look at. 
 
 
I wouldn't mind seeing a 7e Hero, but I'd like to see some vast changes in how some of the rules work. Up until now, we've had a rework of a rework of a rework of the same rule for the most part. Sure they changed figured characteristics, and some powers, and this and that. I'd like to see bigger changes, personally. Rather than an "or less" roll, I'd love to have a "higher than" check instead. I'd like to see the universes reworked and modernized a bit, and while I love the toolkit feel of the game, I'd like to see a return of the setting + rules. Champions, Espionage, Justice Inc. and others of its time is how I came into Hero, and I'd love to see full books "Powered by Hero" rather than just a toolkit. But most of all, I'd like to see Hero back on store shelves and people talking about it more. This is really the primary place to talk Hero. In many circles that I'm in, the game is almost an anathema, with a few of us being the old fools that try to get people to play. The game needs a shot in the arm, and to become something big again. I never thought I'd say this, but gods do I miss the '90s! 
 

To answer the question directly, the last time Champions was fun for me was 6E. Do I think 6E is perfect? Of course not. Do I approve all the changes that 6E brought? No. Do I believe it's a bloody good game. Hell yeah!
 
What is my favorite edition? Probably a blend of 4, 5 and 6. Given a choice between all editions, which one would I choose? 6E.
 
But if I could, I would play 7E

Movement is exactly the same as it was.  A normal human being moves 12 meters in a combat move in a phase, no matter what edition you use.  It was called "inches" but the distance was always exactly the same.  If you want you can still call it that, or consider each hex to be 2m.  You roll to hit the same.  You resolve damage the same.  You use the same maneuvers.  You have the same stats for damage.  You have the same powers that act the same way (entangle, KA, drain, etc).  You use the same defenses. 
 
I mean, people bring up stuff like Comeliness being gone (didn't affect game play, that's RP stuff), Complication points (character creation) and other ideas, but when it comes down to sitting at the table, someone who only played 3rd edition traveling through time could play 6th edition without any confusion or shock very easily.  There are a few new powers to get used to but aside from that?  Its the same game.  
 
I cannot for the life of me comprehend how someone would suddenly have no fun with Champions because of the new editions, its not like D&D which changed so much between recent editions.  Its just Champions with some new bells and whistles added.  What about the new edition makes it less fun?  The color of the books?
 
I have some problems with 6th, but I mean, this whole "it ruined the game" thing is baffling to me. You can even add Comeliness back into the game if you want, the rules even say so.

To answer the question directly, the last time Champions was fun for me was 6E. Do I think 6E is perfect? Of course not. Do I approve all the changes that 6E brought? No. Do I believe it's a bloody good game. Hell yeah!
 
What is my favorite edition? Probably a blend of 4, 5 and 6. Given a choice between all editions, which one would I choose? 6E.
 
But if I could, I would play 7E

To answer the question directly, the last time Champions was fun for me was 6E. Do I think 6E is perfect? Of course not. Do I approve all the changes that 6E brought? No. Do I believe it's a bloody good game. Hell yeah!
 
What is my favorite edition? Probably a blend of 4, 5 and 6. Given a choice between all editions, which one would I choose? 6E.
 
But if I could, I would play 7E

In this alternate universe where everything else  is being equal, I would have started my RPG life with l'Oeil Noir first edition, then moved on to Pendragon and thereafter to RuneQuest, Chaosium and Stormbringer. While trying a bunch of other games, HarnMaster, Talislanta, WFRP, Bushido, Rêve de Dragons, Empires et Dynasties, Rolemaster and more I forget at the moment, RQ3 would have remained my go to game until I would have discovered GURPS and then HERO. Both games would come to dominate my gaming life for 2 decades until BRP would come forward once more with Mythras, Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest and join GURPS and HERO as my go to games.
 
I guess this alternate universe wouldn't be much different than this one after all. 

That's an offense waiting to happen... 😁

But does it want to be massaged?

Don't get me wrong,  I like the two Templates book but certainly not for the layout of the character sheets. Something I particularly dislike about 6E (and I like 6E) is the "wall of characteristics". If a sheet simply lists all the 17 primaries and secondaries in a big block with no attempt to divide them by functions, it's 2 strikes against the sheet in my book.

I don't think HERO needs a 7th edition as much as it needs a facelift to look a bit less cryptic. My next Champions core book would NOT really be a 7th edition but more a reskinning of the current rules with a focus on streamlining and removing the need for "clever" builds (like super running being built with Flight by removing the ability to fly or with Teleport by removing the ability to teleport). Also, I would review the layout of the character write-ups so they look a bit more functional and less blocky.
 
HERO, in my opinion, doesn't have a "rule" problem,  it has a "presentation" problem.

Of course. But if this thread would lead to a revised or updated CC, I can only assume the feedback would be diligently proritized, as 1) reasonable feedback that can be reasonably be implemented, 2) reasonable feedback to is too difficult to implement or going against the objective and 3) rejected feedback.
 
One big misconception about feedback, is that it must, and will be implemented. This way lies madness and often leads the requester of feedback to only want to receive opinions that fall under the first category and perceive opinions of the second and third categories as "too much feedback", "feedback I do not want" or "people are just complaining". It totally defeats the purpose of feedback.
 
Anyway, moving on...
And this is something I really appreciate of CC in contrast of 6E. I suspect by only cutting similar statements in 6E, you can probably cut 50 pages right there... 😉

@DreadDomain
What I tend to do when I play is have my players use a copy of CC while I use 1 & 2. If there is an issue that's not in CC I use the 6e core to "overrule" or I'd there is something that is left out of CC (or fantasy hero complete) but in APG1/2 then I allow it. Oven even allowed stuff from Digital Hero - so I'm right there with you on it all.

Clearly not a fan 😁

Hugh, I must admit that I am surprised my two points above led you to this conclusion so I will attempt to frame my position a bit better.
 
First, I will state clearly that in my views, both points are minor and yet, they are not about corner cases. The reason I bring them up is simply because generally, CC succeeds to clearly and succinctly repackage 6E in a tight book, in a well organised manner. CC definitely helps people "get" Champions. It makes it easier on newcomer and veteran alike to just jump in.
 
The two examples above (specifically growth) in my mind stand-out. For Damage Shield, a slight rewording would make it super clear (it is super clear for Range and Mobile). For Growth it's about user friendliness and organisation. Cutting out a simple table to have people refer to more complex tables at the back of the book is in my view, not a good trade-off.
 
I want to reassure you that I was not complaining. I was simply voicing my opinion about what I think are potential organisational and clarification improvements and doing so in a thread that seems to be created for it. Do I demand, or even expect, that they will be taken into consideration? Of course not. We're just a few blokes chatting here and I expect and respect the fact that people will have different opinions, and might even change them.
 
Last point, both 6E and CC are product that I am very happy with. I always use CC first and when in doubt, I always refer to 6E.