Ki-rin

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things The thing I like about figuring out what the "right" thing to do from The Master Game Balance Equation is that it seems to keep all parties happy: The Bricks get an attack that can conceivably have higher AP than even their Haymaker, since the max AP on thrown objects is 2x their base Str AP, rather than the 1.5x of the Haymaker, keeping The Combat Monster , The Mad Slasher , and The Pro from Dover happy. The game genre is respected, keeping The Copier and The Genre Fiend happy. ...and the limits on AP cost and other logical consistency points keep The Rules Rapist from ruining everyone else's good time. This is one of the things I really like about the HERO system. The system itself is strong enough that if you enforce it in a logically consistent manner it usually comes very close to working out correctly. No matter what anyone's opinion/ruling/religion on the matter says. That's the hallmark of a very well designed system.

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things ROTFLMAO... ...So when someone else disagrees with a SL ruling, they're "clueless", "deluded", "F*cked up", etc, etc, but when SL disagrees with your POV, then SL is wrong? That's a great example of Hypocrisy. I 100% agree with Sean that Game Balance must be paramount. However, I also agree with others that say the it's unreasonable for "staples" of the genre not to be modeled reasonably well and in a game balanced way by the system. How to resolve the on-the-surface inconsistency? AP cost and the Master Game Balance Equation. When using a weapon, you can't do more than 2x your base AP class in damage with it including Advantages. Thus swinging or throwing a Tank could do considerably more AP than just your Str strike does. It also gives your Str Strike the Ads of Area Affect and perhaps a few others (Ranged, +1 OCV, +1 STUNx, Penetrating, etc, all come to mind as candidates). If the the attack is into a "volatile" environment, that environment may itself generate further damage (Champsguy's excellent fire attack into gas tanks example). This can indeed allow a brick to generate some awe inspiring damage in one shot. But it is NOT for free, and it's not unlimited. The genre examples are fairly clear that these kinds of attacks usually involve the brick pushing themself (increased END cost) and/or taking extra time to make the attack (Haymaker-like slowness to the attack) as well as the fact that said object is usually damaged pretty severely by such use (The more extreme examples show the object to be a "one shot" weapon.) So via these methods the brick gets an attack that does up to 2x the AP of their STR that is likely to be slower than their standard attack and of extremely limited number of "charges". ...Not to mention the more subtle negatives the such extensive property damage can have... In practice, crunching the numbers ends up coming close to what Sean has been posting.

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer My take on Casual Killer as written up by HERO in the Official Sources is that it is some combination of Psychopath ("someone who is unaware or uncaring of Society's rules and mores.") and Sociopath ("someone who hates or has contempt for Society"), with perhaps some psychotic ("someone who perceives and/or lives in their own Reality unrelated to what the rest of us agree is Reality.") tendencys thrown in. Even these terms are slang. More precise and professional characterizations can be found is the American Psychiatric Associations DSM (Diagnostics and Statistics Manual). This goes _way_ beyond "being willing to kill legitimate combatents". It implies a disregard to some degree or another about Collateral Damage and the Lives of Innocents. This is beining willing to use a bomb to destroy an entire building of people in order to kill your target (or being willing to poison everyone in a dinner party to make sure the target is poisoned, or ...). This is being willing to strap explosives onto their child's carriage to guarantee that the "criminal" is a Ground Zero when you remotely detonate the device in pursuit of "justice". Batman and the Punisher, for all they are portrayed as "dark", are not Casual Killers. Neither is Wolverine. Sabertooth _is_. EDIT: Real World examples of the difference between a soldier being deadly and being a Casual Killer do exist. I'd have a very candid conversation with the player as to exactly what kind of character they are trying to play using example characters from literature, potential scenarios, and the choices they think appropriate for this PC in those scenarios. Then, assuming they really want to play a Casual Killer and you're willing to let it into the campaign, I'd ENFORCE them playing the PC as defined by the conversation unless or until they paid the points to overcome the DisAd.

Re: What we like about HERO My biggest like is the by-and-large fundamental Game Balance Equation of +5 Ap= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x the effect on the same amount of mass= the same effect on 2x the mass. This is an energy balance equation, and it allows _anything_ to be constructed or done in a game balanced way over a very wide range of AP without "breaking" the game or resorting to "special case rules" if it is used cleverly enough. BTW, A.J.Gibson, the above is exactly how I'd deal with your "off the cuff" natural uses of a PC's powers. Using your chracter sheet and the above equation I can tell you just how difficult it is and/or how long it takes and even what extra you'd need if you can't already do "it". No matter what you want to do. So yes, I can tell your water SFX based character exactly what they have to do to get out of a well, or fertilize a field, or ... etc. ...And I can tell your electrical SFX based character how long it would take for them to recharge a battery- or how much it would help their abilities to "drain" any specific power source, or ...etc. My biggest gripe with HERO is the flawed movement system in general, the unbalanced impulse chart in specific, and the resultant high cost of SPD in specific. Because of the flawed movment system, SPD is a "special case": It costs _far_ more than any other characteristic and it can't be rounded. These are blemishes on an otherwise superior system. We have tried a trick learned from Star Fleet Battles to help fix this and it seems to work better than HERO "as written": A) We use a SPD chart whose maximum number of phases is equal to that of the fastest character in the tactical situation. We use what seems under playtest to be more balanced phase chart(s): 1 x x x x x x 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x 1 1 1 x x 2 2 2 3 x x 1 x x x 2 2 x 3 3 4 x 1 x x 2 2 x 3 3 x 4 5 x x x 2 x x 3 x 4 4 5 6 x x x x x 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 1 x 2 x 3 x x 5 x 6 x 8 x x x 3 x 4 5 x 6 7 7 9 x 2 x x 4 x x 6 7 x 8 A x x x x x 5 6 7 8 8 9 B x x 3 4 x x 7 x x 9 A C x x x x 5 6 x 8 9 A B 1 x x x 1 1 2 x 1 1 x 2 3 x x x 2 3 4 1 x 2 3 x 5 x 2 x x 4 6 x x 3 4 5 Are the House impulse charts with a maximum SPD of 12 and 6 respectively. These impulse charts being more "balanced" allowed us to experiment with lowering the cost for SPD to +5 CP= +1 SPD. We've also experimented both with allowing the rounding of SPD and in different ways of treating am "x.3" SPD as being different from a "x.4" SPD. But overall, HERO is a great system that needs just a few tweaks to outgrow it genre-specifc 4CC roots.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Thanks for the warm welcome. Unfortunate that the old saying is true and "you can't go home again." Thanks to folks like ChampsGuy and you for helping me make my future RPG purchasing choices.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Yea, well I came up with them all in ~15 secs total. Not surprising that they don't represent most standards of decent. I shudder to think what a _real_ effort at min-maxing using this AoE ruling will result in. AoE was 2D with a min volume in the 1980's. It was 2D with a min volume in the 1990's. It should still be 2D with a min volume now. If it isn't, then it needs to get recosted (and in respect to English, renamed).

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Same IME. OTOH, the quest to be effective/efficient +is+ part of the game, the genre, and the Meta-genre (RPGs). And Life. A decent acid test as to whether something is game imbalancing is if its existence would fundamentally change the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" balance of the game. AoE being 8x for every (+1/4) spent means that it becomes a "must have" combat advantage. All combat strategy and combat tactics will revolve around it being the Premier Combat Power if such effects are used "properly" by this ruling. -That- means HERO gets broken. When Rules Abuse takes place, a GM can and should rightfully curb it. OTOH, a system that is constantly requiring GM intervention for doing things that are well within the realm of "standard" for the system is seriously flawed. If AoE (Radius) 8x volume for every (+1/4) spent, there are are way too many "standard" AoE constructs that players are well within their rights to make that I'm going to have to rule as being abusive. Under such circumstances, the player(s) in question have every right to cry foul and claim the aren't getting to play what the rules say they paid money to play. Thus, as a GM I have A Problem . The ruling needs to change, or the cost for increasing AoE (Radius) needs to change, or I need to run a nonstandard HERO campaign, or I have to throw HERO out and use another system. As a _player_, if I don't take advantage of AoE's 3D nature, and protect against it when designing defences, I'm Dead Meat in campaigns where AoE works this way. Given the choices and the existing historical and play tested precedent in previous Official HERO material, best alternative is probably that SL's ruling should change. Second best is probably to publish errata AFAFP that makes explicit separate AoE ® and VoE ® Ads at appropriate costs for their each of their efficiency and effectiveness. A distant third is House Rules since bitter experience has taught me just how fragile that solution is. Worst case I "vote with my feet and my dollars" and find a system without such a gaping logical fallacy in it.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Don't know who you folks have or have had for PC's or fellow players, but IME players will always push the limits of what is allowed by the rules system until the GM lets them know where the line they can't cross is. If AoE is a volume that can be 8x for every (+1/4) spent, players =WILL= start taking advantage of that 3D nature in ways that are counter-intuitive genre and system-wise and examples of Rules Abuse: PC: "Since AoE is a perfect sphere, I'll buy an N-Ray Vision power with enough AoE (Radius) that I can have perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a [insert ridiculous sized volume: city, miles,] region." Bye bye surprise and initiative rolls. Bye bye most plot devices of the GM. ...And that's not even an example AoE Rules Abuse with a _destructive_ power. PC: "Damn. I tripped the silent alarm and the Black Regiment is fully deployed in the Land, Sea, and Air (maybe even underground as well) around me? Good thing I bought this Flash AoE in a large enough sphere I can blind all of them in the entire volume at once. Mr GM, after I escape what's the next closest city whose economy/resources/etc I can destroy?" ...and again, I'm not even Abusing a damage causing attack. PC: "Damn. That +entire+ superteam is attacking me? Some Fly, some Run, and some are even Tunneling? Good thing they are all in a [insert tactical volume that makes GM wince] hex sphere. This one AoE may not take them all down, but it'll at least serously damage the "soft" targets, and if I mess things up enough for them, I'll never have to worry about any Coordinated Attacks..." ...and on and on it will go.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? The Master Game Balance Equation of HERO is that +5AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x the effect on the same amount of mass= that same effect on 2x the mass. Always has been. Always will be. Or HERO breaks. I'm not supporting or allowing =ANY= game effect that is more efficient or effective than this. Ever. If the means that I agree with the "Old Gods" of MacDonald and Patterson et al and must disagree with the "New Gods" of Long et al, then So Be It. I will make House Rules that respect the Master Game Balance Equation of HERO accordingly. If I'm told I'm not allowed to play HERO anymore, then someone else gets my money (Hello Steve Jackson) and HERO loses the financial support I've been giving them since the 1980's. MegaScale is a different kind of fish and a decent way of dealing with certain problems IMHO. It's one of the Good New Ideas. Although I'm sure we're going to be struggling with making sure it stays game balanced in actual use for some time.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? The real "icky" with Breaking Objects is that DEF is a +very+ abstract concept, particularly when applied to living and/or animate objects. Our lives would've been much simpler if Objects had Passive and Active Defenses just like PC's do.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? The point I was trying to make is that the each +5 AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x effect to the same amount of mass= the same amount of effect to 2x the mass is the cornerstone Game Balance Equation of HERO and has been since Day One in 1980 mumble. Constructs that are more efficient than this are system abusive. That means a "(+1/4)n for each 8x in mass" Ad is going to be system abusive.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? A Trip Down Memory Lane: I've pulled my 1984 copy of FH and my 1982-1988 copies of C1, C2, and C3 out of storage to get the exact wordings in each regarding AoE attacks and the various Ads associated with them. I shit you not folks. We played AoE as a 2D construct while using miniatures and hex paper. I'm not trying to prevaricate by even a little, and we learned the game from people who were in AA and SP's campaigns. OTOH, I had already been playing Runequest, DnD, and Arduin Grimore (Deodanths or Star Mages anyone?) for years at that point. God I feel old. Things were more innocent then. No "min volume" rule. No "other obvious protections from the Rules Lawyers" rules or rules mods. *sigh*. I'll post it all when I get it organized. It'll be long.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? One More Time. The "min volume" rule for AoE was adopted because of Rules Abuse. AoE was originally and has always been a 2D construct with the sole exception of the "min volume" rule. The only "house rule" was "min volume". Evidently history repeated itself around here and then the pendulum kept swinging past "correction" and into a different kind of Rules Abuse. The in general 2D nature of AoE was Official going back as far as the 1980's. Back then, I would have killed to be able to use a (+1/4)n Ad to repeatedly 8x the volume or mass affected of my wizard's AoE attacks. Thank God no such temptation existed.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? My position is that AoE is essentially 2D and that the "minimum volume" rule was created specifically to deal with a Rules Abuse issue (I think my first run-in was when some Rules Lawyer wanted to define their attack as extra lethal given the "mono-filament" like SFX of AoE. My second run-in was another FRL claiming how easy it was to avoid a 2D SFX AoE. We adopted a minimum volume rule post haste and spread it to every local GM we knew by email.) Now I'm seeing the _opposite_ kind of Rules Abuse. And once again, AoE is being made more efficient/effective than its point cost should allow. One of the cornerstones of HERO is that "2x mass is +1 Body" rule. It's implications are =everywhere=. Any construction that is more efficient breaks HERO and is Rules Abuse. The 2x r in 2D Ad for (+1/4) has been around since the 1980's. Making it a 2x r in 3D Ad for (+1/4) is Game Unbalancing and therefore Rules Abuse. As I've said, I'd have no problem with there being a "Volume Effect (Radius)" where 2x r in 3D cost (+1/2).

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? For The Love of God, I have +NEVER+ said the original AoE was 2D. I helped kill that piece of Rules Abuse in my local games a LONG time ago when Champions was still distributed in a softcover book... By the time 4th ed came out, it was a non issue in my area because we had all adopted the "minimum volume" rule. That has =NOTHING= to do with what happens to that original volume once we start applying shape changing Ads to it. Game balance and logical consistency, as well as little things like English Definitions, mean that a (+1/4) Ad called "Area blah" that 8x _volume_ is GROSS and Rules Abuse.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? On The Contrary, I've tried to be polite and logical while disagreeing with you. If you read that as "condescending and arrogant", that's YOUR problem, not mine. As is your personal attacks and sewage mouth. Back to Solving The Problem... What shape the AoE has after the Ad is applied is unrelated to what shape the AoE originally was. In addition, 2x r in 3D is a _volume_ change. 2x r in 2D is an _area_ change. The Ad clearly calls itself "Area Effect". Finally, the Ad would be too cheap at (+1/4) per 2r if it was 3D rather than 2D. The AoE Ad starts off occupying a minimum volume to avoid 2D Rules Lawyering, not because the authors got the definitions of "area" and "volume" incorrect. My best read on this is that the Area starts off as a sphere and becomes a cylinder as we apply the (+1/4) Ad. YMMV.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? pardon the error on the sentence count. It's the last sentence (the fourth) that defines the cost and game mechanic for increasing area effect. That's the one that implies that the (+1/4) Ad does NOT result in a 3D, but rather only in 2D increase in radius. I've edited that post and made the appropriate correction.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? My apologies for attempting humor on the evidently humor-impaired. The HERO "bible" (Note the quotes J@ck @ss) is of course the official rules and system book(s). And the analogy to The Bible is particularly appropriate for you since you evidently can't to do anything but read it literally with no regard for logic, nuance, or vocabulary. Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong again. I've been very polite up until now despite your foaming at the mouth. The first cited sentence defines the minimum space affected by the power. This is a volume. The second and third continues that definition. The last sentence does NOT imply that 2x the radius increases the height of the effect in any way. In fact, the use of the word "area" rather than "volume" strongly suggests otherwise.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? No, the rules clearly state there's a minimum _volume_ that is affected by a AoE Att. (1" per 10 AP. Most games I've played in treat this as real inches rather than map inches)

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? I've been quoting from the HERO "bible" all through this thread. Specific page numbers wouldn't add a thing to the discussion. Case in point: Hero 5th Edition, page 159, second column, paragraph 2, entitled: Area of Effect (Radius): "The area is 1" in all three dimensions for every 10 Character Points in the Power not counting the Area of Effect Advantage." Now look at how Area of Effect (Radius) is increased. Each doubling doubles the radius in map hexes, NOT in all three dimenstions. The _Area_, not the _Volume_. Else it would be called "Volume Effect (Radius)". So just buying Area Effect (Radius) to earth size would result in a cylinder 1" high for every 10 AP in the Power with a circumference of earth size, NOT a sphere of earth size. To do that, you have to grow the volume in height in addition to the map hex radius increase. The fairest way to do that would be to create a specific "Volume Effect (Radius)" Ad which had the appropriate cost for 8x the volume affected for every 2x in r. Since we 4x the area for each 2r at a cost of (+1/4), 8x the volume for each 2r should have a cost of something like (+1/2).

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? To expect that something is correct only if it is explicitly written is silly. That's like saying that unless the Bible specifically forbids lying then it's OK to lie. Or to be married to multiple people at once (I'm talking the ladies get multiple mates as well, guys). Etc, etc. While there is not one rule, there is what the Law calls "a preponderance of evidence.": The HERO "bible" clearly states that if you want to hit everything within a HEX, you must make an Area Effect Attack. It is also clearly stated that the default is that you attack a specific part of a hex (something in it), not a hex itself, and not an area. The HERO "bible" calls it an "Area Effect Attack", not a "Volume Effect Attack". In the HERO "bible" Attacking increased thickness in walls is treated seperately and in addition to attacking increased area of walls. The HERO "bible" states that each 2x of mass is +1 Body for objects. Mass of a solid goes up as r^2 in an area. This means that to affect an area of 2r we need to affect 4x as much Body, or +2 Body for each doubling of r in an area (exact match to the "bible's" Breaking Objects rules). Mass of a solid goes up as r^3 in a volume. This means to affect a volume of 2r we need to affect 8x as much Body, or +3 Body for each doubling of r in a volume. QED. to attack A) a specific part of an area, an area, and C) a volume are distinctly different kinds of attacks and must be built accordingly, and the HERO "bible" tells us so.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? At the risk of being obvious, HERO system Area Effect Ads affect _Area_. Solid objects of equi-dimensional measurement need to have their _Volume_ attacked. Particularly large (>= 1 Hex) equi-dimensional solids. Best way I know to do that system-wise is to buy both the appropriate amount of the Area Effect (Line) and Area Effect (Radius) and/or Area Effect (Hex) Ads. Figuring the proper DEF for a reasonably solid or solid volume when the game system is geared for Areas is more difficult.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Champsguy, If you want to attack a hex rather than a object within a hex, or if you want to attack everything within a group of hexes, you have to have the appropriate level of Area Effect Ad. That's not my opinion. That's the rules. Similarly, breaking the earth into asteriods means attacking the entire earth at once to some degree or another. IOW, attacking the earth as one object. IOW, you have to attack a significant _volume_ of the earth. HERO does not have a "Volume Effect" Ad. HERO deals with volumes by pretending they are layers of areas. This works reasonably well as long as the layers total thickness is relatively thin. It breaks down otherwise. Systems designed to manipulate areas with tweaks for layering are not going to adequately handle the manipulation of volumes, particularly solid volumes. One has to go back to first principles and start talking about manipulating the actual masses involved while being as system-consistent as possible under such circumstances. I've tried to do that and make it clear both what the letter and spirit of HERO canon are under such circumstances. Let's try it again a slightly different way. The earth masses 5.97x10^27 g and has a volume of 1.08 x 10^27 cm^3 and therefore has an average density of 5.52 g/cm^3. In game terms that means we need to do 5.5 Body per cm^3 to "break" a chunk of earth. 2x that to vaporize it. That attack "breaks" a specific cm^3 of earth. Puncturing a 1" hex (AKA 2 meter) hole through the earth with the rules requires the use of the Area Affect (One Hex) and Area Affect (Line) Ad to the appropriate depth of the earth. Attacking _all_ of the mass of the earth at once then requires that we widen that 1 Hex earth deep hole using Area Effect (Radius) to ~3,000,000 hexes so that we approximate the "Volume Effect" Ad. Then we have to amp the attack up enough to overcome the Earth's DEF. DEF is an abstraction that represents the size, composition, and structural integrity of the inanimate object being attacked. There are no published HERO documents stating what Earth's DEF is. The best we can do is again try to figure it out from first principles given what we know DEF represents. DEF goes up as things get harder, bigger, and more structurally sound. The earth is _extremely_ structurally sound. The earth is _very_ big. The earth's average density is greater than that of Titanium. Hmmm. All of that argues for a high DEF. How high is certainly a valid discussion. My guess given the HERO source material on terminal velocity and how DEF seems to increase with size, composition, and structural soundness is that Earth's DEF is probably between 60 and 75. Planets of earth size made of less dense materials (with therefore a lower gravitational constant) would have a lower DEF. Planets of earth size made of denser materials would have a higher DEF. Thus we have, being careful to be "true" to system and using nothing but what we know about the actual physical object in question and the rules, created a plausible and logically consistent way to "break the earth" as one object. It's an attack powerful enough to overcome 60 to 75 DEF and still do 5.5 Body with the Area Effect (One Hex) Ad and that has enough both the Area Effect (Line) Ad and Area Effect (Radius) Ad to be deep enough and wide enough to attack the entire volume of the earth as one object. While the numbers may not be eactly right, the reasoning is completely consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the rules of the game. The "200 Body destroys the Earth" example at best breaks a relatively thin Earth-sized area, not all the mass in an earth sized volume. Oh, and it might be best to lose the "I'm the expert around here." Argument from Authority attitude. First, it doesn't change the logic or correctness of your argument in the least. Second, some of the people around here have been gaming longer than you've been alive. Some of us _know_ people like Jackson, and Patterson, and Sustarre, and Cole, and Perrin, and Arneson, and ... etc. If such people aren't making Arguments from Authority, perhaps you should not either?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? The problem isn't large objects. The problem isn't objects that can be approximated by a wall, or a box, or any other container. Nor is it complex, relatively squishy objects like characters. Etc, etc. The problem is large, equi-dimensional (or close to) solids. The rules as published do not address or attempt to address the issue. It is in fact, notable in its absence. The good news is that one can use logic to extrapolate from what has been written to correctly deal with the unaddressed issue of large, equi-dimensional, solids. That's one of the traits of a good system.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? But that's part of the point. A "wall" is noticably thinner in one dimension than the other two. Once this property is invalidated, it's no longer a "wall". With the sole exception of the screw-up in Star Hero 2nd ed, =ALL= HERO object breaking write-ups have been about a) small objects, or objects that are noticably thinner in one dimension. Other than the aberrant SH 2nd ed reference, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL HERO GAMES WRITE UP ON BREAKING LARGE SCALE SIZED OBJECTS THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN ALL DIMENSIONS. This is a serious reference citing. Pay attention please. Everything I wrote was based on extrapolating the rules in a logically consistent way from the domain where there is official HERO canon to this problem which does =NOT= exist in any official HERO canon (other than the previously mentioned aberrant SH 2nd ed write up). My entire write up is based on reference citings and evidence. That's not a SFX, it's an immense Area Effect Advantage. Pay the AP for the power or don't get the attack. I refer you every write up on Area Attacks ever written. LOL! I just gave references to variant of every official edition of HERO ever made (I even have copies of the pre-production Samurai Hero), and _I'm_ unfamilar with HERO? That's simply delusional. A HERO system hex is a) a 2D construct, and considerably bigger in sectional area than a 1 cm^3 volume, being 2 +METERS+ wide. I'm given the Earth 5.5 Body per cm^3. The rules say it take 2x body to "vaporize" (as in "reduce to -small- particles") an object. Once you are trying to "blow a hole" in something that is as big as the something, that's called "attacking the entire something", not blowing a hole in it. Now if you want to talk about what it would take system-wise to =drill= a hole through the earth and out the other side, that's a different discussion. Knockback happens +to what is left+ after damage is dealt. If the object is too small/light/etc to absorb the majority of the Force, you have blow through (it breaks at the contact area) or it goes flying. I got nailed by both hoofs of horse when I was 8 or 9. That blow sent me sailing the length and height of the barn I was in and left a bruise covering my entire chest. If got hit like that now, it would likely cave in my ribs and probably kill me on the spot. Why? Because I weighed ~25Kg then and I weigh ~100Kg now. I couldn't absorb the energy then and since it _must_ be conserved, it got translated into moving me rather than damaging me. Same story with an attack affecting a substantial percentage of the earth. A big enough meteor hit to destroy the earth's structure would have to be overkill since the first thing that would happen to the earth if it suffered an attack on that scale is that it would knocked from its orbit. Simple Mechanics and Conservation of Energy. There's tons of support to show a) that the rules as written do not apply to large, equi-dimensional solids, that if you want to attack an entire area at once that you have to buy the Area Effect Ad at the appropriate level, and c) that object DEF takes into account the composition, shape (particularly thickness at the attack point), and size of the object you wish to break. You crunched the wrong numbers. The right numbers system-wise indicate that "making an Earth sized hole in the Earth" requires an Area Effect attack of Earth Size that does at least 5.5 Body per cm^3 of the Earth. That's at least 5.5*90= 495 Body after we overcome Earth's DEF. Since Supers are walking around with DEFs of 20+, and they are squisher, less spherical, more complex, and considerably smaller that the Earth, Earth should get a DEF +at least+ as high as the highest DEF you are willing to hand out in your campaign (and probably higher since the Earth can damage said Max DEF character.) Thus =based on reading the rules in a logically consistent manner=, you need an attack whose AP is based on attacking an area the size of Earth for 495 Body after overcoming it's DEF. Given the likely DEF, it would probably be more point efficient (see, I'm even helping you min-max the construction of this Monty Hall attack) to make this a Killing Atack and use Ads like Armor Piercing and Penetrating rather than just put more dice into the attack. The Area Effect Ad will increase the costs by (+1 and +1/4 for each doubling of radius) and have to affect ~3,000,000 hexes. That's 21 or 22 doublings for a (+6.5) Ad to the AP cost. The final AP cost will be in the >= 100K range. QED ("quod erat demonstrandum". It literally translates as "which was to be demonstrated")