DreadDomain

Absolutely! Rulewise O much much prefer 4, 5, 5r and 6 to anything that came before it...
 
..but the toolkit approach does not have to exclude the complete game approach. Once you have given me the toolkit (you could never take 6E1 and 6E2 away from me), be bold. Use the toolkit and give me games.
Give me a Fantasy Hero where the secondary characteristics are figured
Reattach CVs. Drop characteristics you dont need. Change the way skills are calculated from characteristics. Change the skill list and give me new talents. Don't give me a power system, give me equipment, vehicles and magic! Stop writing everything as +1/2 and -3/4. Give me the writer's vision!
You know what? If I dont like something I will use the toolkit and change it.

Absolutely! Rulewise O much much prefer 4, 5, 5r and 6 to anything that came before it...
 
..but the toolkit approach does not have to exclude the complete game approach. Once you have given me the toolkit (you could never take 6E1 and 6E2 away from me), be bold. Use the toolkit and give me games.
Give me a Fantasy Hero where the secondary characteristics are figured
Reattach CVs. Drop characteristics you dont need. Change the way skills are calculated from characteristics. Change the skill list and give me new talents. Don't give me a power system, give me equipment, vehicles and magic! Stop writing everything as +1/2 and -3/4. Give me the writer's vision!
You know what? If I dont like something I will use the toolkit and change it.

It was lost to us because HERO Games mostly decided to not showcase it. The greatest HERO paradox is that from 5e onwards they were establishing the system as the ultimate toolkit but mostly refused to use it themselves. We had lots of (good) books filled with suggestions (genre book) but very few games (à la Danger International and Justice Inc). Lucha Libre and MHI were the closest to it.
The most notable failure in ths department of "let's use the toolkit to create a game" was Fantasy Hero Complete. In the end it was merely a rehash of the toolkit in a thin fantasy trappings.

I've been playing Champions in 6th and it's been growing on me.  If I had to pick a second favorite, it would probably be 6th.  

I know your favorite edition is Champions 3e while mine is 6e but I read your post and pretty much agree with all of it. Having 6e as my preferred does not mean I agree with everything that was done (I dont).

Not sure what you mean by "early editions" but back in the days, our group startec with 4e. Out of 7 players I can confidently say that 4 of us got in in the first session and perhaps even up to 6. Playing HERO, any edition, is not hard but there certainly many moving parts.

These two comments plus the lack of complete pre-packaged games (DI, JI, etc...) for later editions sum where I think HERO went wrong.
My favorite edition is 6e but some of the deconstructivism for the sake of point balance or for the sake of bundling similar powers together went to far. Adding complexity (sometimes only apparent complexity) for little gain. Also the anally retentive way to make character builds more complete/accurate/complex and write everything (in long form) and the wall of characteristics just make the character difficult to read.
Again, I like 6e and I appreciate the completeness of the Basic Set but at the very least it should have been coupled with Danger International, Justice Inc and Fantasy Hero as complete games using the toolkit, not showing the toolkit.

These two comments plus the lack of complete pre-packaged games (DI, JI, etc...) for later editions sum where I think HERO went wrong.
My favorite edition is 6e but some of the deconstructivism for the sake of point balance or for the sake of bundling similar powers together went to far. Adding complexity (sometimes only apparent complexity) for little gain. Also the anally retentive way to make character builds more complete/accurate/complex and write everything (in long form) and the wall of characteristics just make the character difficult to read.
Again, I like 6e and I appreciate the completeness of the Basic Set but at the very least it should have been coupled with Danger International, Justice Inc and Fantasy Hero as complete games using the toolkit, not showing the toolkit.

Not sure what you mean by "early editions" but back in the days, our group startec with 4e. Out of 7 players I can confidently say that 4 of us got in in the first session and perhaps even up to 6. Playing HERO, any edition, is not hard but there certainly many moving parts.

You are correct. I am not saying the 6E way is wrong. I just prefer the aesthetic of the previous build.
 
I prefer:
Transfer: Transfer END 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 60 CP 
 
over
Transfer: Drain END 4d6 (40 Active Points); Unified
Power (-.) (total cost: 32 CP) plus Aid END 4d6 (standard effect:
same roll as Drain dice), Trigger (when character uses Drain,
activating Trigger takes no time, Trigger immediately automatically
resets; +1) (48 Active Points); Only Aid Self (-1), Linked (-.),
Unified Power (-.). Real Cost: 51 CP
 
and
Instant Change: Switch one set of clothes for another. Real Cost: 3 CP
 
over
Instant Change: Cosmetic Transform 1d6 (standard
effect: switch one set of clothes for another), Trigger (changing
clothing is a Zero Phase Action, Trigger automatically resets;
+.) (5 Active Points); Limited Target (the character’s current
clothing; -.). Real Cost: 3 CP
 
 

Thanks for the detailed response Duke. You finally convinced me that the 4th edition is much better than any of the previous editions!

Thanks for the detailed response Duke. You finally convinced me that the 4th edition is much better than any of the previous editions!

I would also suggest that the "complexity" of later editions is provided for gamers to use... or ignore. While we often hear about HERO's complexity, the fact is that characters can be built in a very convoluted way or in a very simple fashion and most of the time the system, though character points, will self balance. It is no more difficult to build a very simple character in HERO 6E than it is in earlier editions but later editions also provide for complex solutions. The power to make these design decisions rests with the players themselves and they choose the level of complexity their character will have.
 
In any case these are cool characters Pariah. Keep them coming!

Extinction Event PDF has been delivered to backers!

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.
 

Ditto here. Affleck had to work with was he was given (including gunning down people) but he did a good job and personally thought he was the better choice for the chatacter physically. I never cared about Bat-Keaton and while I liked Bat-Bale, he never had the jaw for the role.
In the end Batfleck is closer to the source material.

You are correct. I am not saying the 6E way is wrong. I just prefer the aesthetic of the previous build.
 
I prefer:
Transfer: Transfer END 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 60 CP 
 
over
Transfer: Drain END 4d6 (40 Active Points); Unified
Power (-.) (total cost: 32 CP) plus Aid END 4d6 (standard effect:
same roll as Drain dice), Trigger (when character uses Drain,
activating Trigger takes no time, Trigger immediately automatically
resets; +1) (48 Active Points); Only Aid Self (-1), Linked (-.),
Unified Power (-.). Real Cost: 51 CP
 
and
Instant Change: Switch one set of clothes for another. Real Cost: 3 CP
 
over
Instant Change: Cosmetic Transform 1d6 (standard
effect: switch one set of clothes for another), Trigger (changing
clothing is a Zero Phase Action, Trigger automatically resets;
+.) (5 Active Points); Limited Target (the character’s current
clothing; -.). Real Cost: 3 CP
 
 

Ditto here. Affleck had to work with was he was given (including gunning down people) but he did a good job and personally thought he was the better choice for the chatacter physically. I never cared about Bat-Keaton and while I liked Bat-Bale, he never had the jaw for the role.
In the end Batfleck is closer to the source material.

Yes, it is inevitable. Wonder Woman was leaps and bounds better than Captain Marvel. I cared for Gadot while Larson was just in the movie. Danvers could have been an interesting character but was merely a cardboard figure in the movie and the supporting cast in CM, Fury leading the pack, was annoying at best. However, I tend to agree that the final action scene is better and that the vilains are more interesting (the visuals for that part of WW was not the greatest). WW had a better story, better character development and thank God, no flerkin
 
As they say, to each his own (is this what they say?)!

Yes, it is inevitable. Wonder Woman was leaps and bounds better than Captain Marvel. I cared for Gadot while Larson was just in the movie. Danvers could have been an interesting character but was merely a cardboard figure in the movie and the supporting cast in CM, Fury leading the pack, was annoying at best. However, I tend to agree that the final action scene is better and that the vilains are more interesting (the visuals for that part of WW was not the greatest). WW had a better story, better character development and thank God, no flerkin
 
As they say, to each his own (is this what they say?)!

I am not as definitive than RDU Neil, I get where he is coming from. The movie was entertaining with an execution similar to an 80s or 90s action movie: predictable plot driving action sequences, cliche dialogue, cheap humour, good sountrack.
I personally thought Larson was wooden. I really did not care about the character and for that matter did not find anything to conect to emotionally.
I found the Skrulls faily pathetic as oppressed refugees and their situation was further cheapened by the somewhat light-hearted demeanor of their leader (forgot the name). The general "let's try to be funny" approach of the whole movie was distracting and the flerkin simply became an annoyance.
Nick Fury, cracking jokes and generally useless, was the low point of the whole movie. I heard people complain about Batman being to humourous in JL, let's try having Nick Fury as comic relief in CM instead (including the was he lost his eye).
 
At the end of the movie, my 10 yo daughter told me she "liked the movie because it was funny and tha cat and Fury were hilarious."
 
Was it entertaining? Yes. Was it a good movie, not really no.

This. For some reasons I loved the Ultimates as an enemy/rival group. To this list I would also add Leech and Grond.

Not as written but this is why I was suggesting Works on liquids as an advantage. From an effect perspective (ignoring gravity) Clinging is an adequate starting point.
 
I dislike when Running is built Flight or Teleport and feel that Super-Running is so common that it should be built with, you know, Running.
 
My simple solution is two adders to Running; Clings to Surface 5 points and Works on Liquids 5 points.

Not as written but this is why I was suggesting Works on liquids as an advantage. From an effect perspective (ignoring gravity) Clinging is an adequate starting point.
 
I dislike when Running is built Flight or Teleport and feel that Super-Running is so common that it should be built with, you know, Running.
 
My simple solution is two adders to Running; Clings to Surface 5 points and Works on Liquids 5 points.

I echo KS, first off - great post.
 
I would take a similar approach, probably even further.  Rearrange the character sheet, and revise nomenclature.
 
In D&D, the six characteristics go upper left where they are highlighted as these bonuses are frequently referenced. 
 
In Hero, I think SPD, CVs and Defenses are more often referenced.  So put the CV box (with SPD, and add Initiative, being DEX and Lightning Reflexes) in the upper right.  In the rules, these are a separate section (maybe a sub-type of characteristics, maybe a separate name). 
 
Defenses will be referenced a lot, so let's have an upper center box for "Defensive Powers" - PD, ED, rPD, rED, Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Power Defense, and a write-in line or two for unusual defensive powers like Damage Reduction, Negation, etc.  Maybe also some space for "hardened", "impenetrable", etc.
 
Now, let's add a section for Attacks - here, you can list your common maneuvers and attack powers, typical OCV/DCV, Skill Levels and Damage, END cost and any special notes (e.g. "concentration - DCV halved", or "AP").
 
Another box for Movement (maybe including all forms, maybe only Running, Swimming, Leaping and blank spaces for non-standard movement).
 
Of course, we need characteristics on this sheet as well. 
 
A space for senses and PER rolls would be good.  Some space for Skills would also be good, but not the D&D model of "show every skill".  Maybe break these up by type as well, starting with the standard Everyman skills printed, and you can write in your other skills.
 
That, plus character bio information (name, height, weight, etc.) seems like enough to play the character.  Skills and senses could spill over to the back of the sheet, along with "miscellaneous" powers and abilities.
 
Your power writeups, CP costs, etc. don't need to be on the character sheet.  A separate "character construction worksheet" can be used for that.  We don't need it in play.
 
 
I think these make good sample powers. I'd hesitate to make them standard on "official" character write-ups as some groups will allow, modify or disallow, specific constructs (e.g. Combat Luck).  Suggesting this approach for common writeups in your specific game makes perfect sense to me, though, and breaking the character sheet down to an "in play" and "construction" sheet makes a lot of sense to me, as noted above.  These sheets could also be customized for specific genres or games - include one for each main genre covered in the Core Rules, include genre and sub-genre sheets in genre books, and include a Turakian Age or Champions Universe sheet in these setting books.
 
 
This is a tough one.  I share your experience that I favoured retention of both, but was persuaded by the reasoning behind their removal.
 
I think the game has to move on.  Changes have been made over the editions, and I would not want a sidebar on (for example) how to keep Damage Resistance as a fixed cost and Armor at 3 DEF for 5 points, retaining Force Field as +1 rDEF that costs END for 1 point.  Nor would I want an optional rules for maneuvers (basic and martial) that multiply damage rather than adding DCs, or a Flight NCM that works differently than other NCMs (exponential rather than doublings).
 
Why not suggest an APPearance characteristic?  It's base 10, costs 1/2 point and every 5 points gives you +5 PRE for all purposes where your appearance would matter.  Or we could have given every character 2 levels of Striking Appearance  by default.  It feels like we really get hung up on whether an ability is a Characteristic, a Perk or a Power.
 
The 6e one that grates on me was removal of the HKA/STR adder doubling rule, just to pop it back in as a sidebar.  Make a rule.  Mind you, I find STR adding to HKA an orphan mechanic that breaks "you get what you pay for" - I would go with "Killing Attack" 1d6/15 points, ranged by default.  You want no range?  Limit it.  You want a bigger KA because you are so strong?  Buy a bigger KA - and let's have a "locks out STR" mechanic for that.  Default, 90 STR Grond can pick up a 1/2d6 Knife and make a Combined Attack to both punch (18d6) and stab (6 1/2d6 KA absent the doubling cap, 1d6+1 with it).  Or maybe, since he rarely/never uses a KA, he should be allowed a limitation that his STR does not add to HKAs. 
 
Figureds are a tougher one.  I could see a sidebar for repricing to retain them, but now we have some Hero games building one way, and others another way.  How does that help the perception "Hero bad - too hard to understand"?  With the pricing fixed, Figureds no longer do anything.
 
"Suggested values" would, to me, suggest that these are probably good enough in the game.  Is that the case for OCV/DCV?  At best, we get back to "any competent fighter needs to be an Olympic gymnast".  The player bringing in his 15 STR, 23 CON martial artist is in for a rude awakening when he leaves his PD and ED at the book-suggested levels.  I never saw anyone fail to increase SPD either. Not sure why we added a BOD suggestion - or why it does not consider how healthy one is (CON).  It's also making STUN more confusing, since it varies with STR and BOD, and BOD varies with STR.
 
I think it would make more sense to expand the guidance by power level - we'd expect a Standard Super to have STR, CON, DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, CV's, Defenses, Stun, END, REC, etc. in these ranges.  That may also avoid the shock to a player who designed a nondescript, unassuming character with a 10 PRE, then finds he never gets an action due to PRE attacks.