Cantriped

What I meant wasn't that failing to publish it in an of itself displayed a lack of professionalism. Sometimes products you had every intention of publishing never make it to publication despite your best intentions and professional efforts. What displayed a lack of professionalism was publishing books that made reference to another book that they hadn't yet published. It was just totally backwards thinking, inexcusable, and in hind-sight comes across as arrogant (especially so considering that Hero Games failed to publish it​). If ​Fantasy Hero, Star Hero, and other supplements really had to reference this book called Hero System Vehicle​, than common sense dictates that ​Hero System Vehicle​ should have already been published by the time the consumer picks up their shiny new copy of Fantasy/Star Hero (or that they be published simultaneously)​. The consumer's expectation being that they'll either own it already, or that they need only go pick it up/order it online. In that sense the newer books act as advertisement for older books the consumer may have missed, generating sales for the company.

From the initial skimming I'm going to hazard a guess and say this was a 5th edition construct? I've lost most of my old 5th Edition rules memory in favor of CC/FHC (I just can't hold two versions of any given game in my head at the same time); however such a construct (or a similar, slightly better built version) should be legal in CC/FHC. A few things that stand out in that construct: You have to declare a "reasonably common" condition which prevents Resurrection. You have to declare a "reasonably identifiable" condition which removes/ends an Uncontrolled Power. You have to declare a "reasonably common" condition which shuts down a power built with Continuing Charges. You have to declare the type of damage it doesn't work on. You don't need both Continuing Charges and Uncontrolled. Uncontrolled functionally gives END-costing powers qualities to those Continuing Charges already possess. In CC/FHC a similar power might look like the following: ​"Just Spit On It":​ Healing 1d6 (SE: 3 BODY), Constant (+1/2), Decreased Re-Use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2), Uncontrolled (Ended By Splashing Mud Or Filth Into The Wound; +1/2) (35 APs); Extra Time (1 Turn; -1 1/4), Incantations To Activate (-1/4). Total Cost: ​14 points. Note: I don't want to restart the "Healing War" from last year; just note that I am not​ halving the effects of Healing BODY in the construct above. So if you do, adjust the construct accordingly. In lieu of Uncontrolled (+1/2), you could use 1 Continuing Charge Lasting 5 Minutes (-1); (30 APs) Total Cost: 8 points. The former is very expensive to maintain for any length of time (even reducing your SPD to 2), but can be used as often as necessary. The latter option can only be used once per day (unless you adjust the number of charges to taste), but will last long enough for the power to tick 25 times, healing up to 75 BODY! More than enough for most purposes, though so outrageous I only suggest it for violent, comedic campaigns where characters regularly get nuked from orbit and stand back up, unharmed moments later.

To be honest, very little. I doubt they would have changed any of the combat values, and few vehicles possess unusual powers... So besides formatting changes (X" to X​m and the like) it would mostly just have been minor changes in the total values of an indeterminate percentage of vehicles. However, If the ​Hero System Vehicle​ would have been more or less identical to ​Ultimate Vehicle, they should have knocked it out right away, and they would have been able to do so easily. So the fact that so little changed doesn't excuse the basic lack of professionalism inherent in referencing a sourcebook that doesn't yet (and we now know wouldn't ever) exist. In fact it makes it all the more unacceptable. We know it certainly wasn't for fear of (or distain for) Copy & Pasting, because a significant portion of Fantasy Hero​ 6th Edition was literally ripped straight from the pages of the 5th Edition version without any revision whatsoever, and I'm sure it wasn't the only example where this was the case. Certainly they should have published Hero System Vehicle before they published sourcebooks such as Fantasy Hero or Star Hero​ which reference it's existence. Because that is just basic logic, and salesmanship. I can't tell you how disappointed I am when I go perusing through Fantasy or ​Star Hero​ and find a reference to something cool they promise is in another book that Hero Games never published. Its like a kick in the teeth to be told my only​ solution it to go convert the closest out-of-date material from the previous edition's vehicle sourcebook. It would be like a developer for Pathfinder telling you to bust out your 3rd Edition Players Handbook for determining starting gold and for buying equipment because they forgot to and now were never going to include that material in their core rules line...

As long as the powers in the suite were constant or persistent, than Continuing Charges is legal. Density Increase and Growth are Constant, most of your common defense powers are Persistent, and despite having pseudo-instant applications, Characteristics (such as Strength) as a Power are also Persistent. So unless she had something like Hand-To-Hand Attack or Hand Killing Attack bought through the suite, it was perfectly legal*. *If she did have HtHA or HKA bought trough the suite: the simplest way to represent that legally would be to use the appropriate version of Linked. Linking the Instant powers to the suite of Constant/Persistent Continuing Charged powers such that she could only use the former while under the effects of the latter. The complicated way would be to build a "Granting Power" using Differing Modifiers UBO (which effectively becomes it's own separate constant power), and place Continuing Charges on your ability to Grant the power (but not to use the Granted Power).

Granted, I almost never buy 2-point CSLs because I don't like one-trick ponies, and paying 50% more (3-points) for 300% return on my investment is just a good deal. I've also always used Hit Locations (even in Superheroic Campaigns). However that house rule sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, because it results in you having to find and sum 5 to 7 different values to determine your actual Combat Value for a Martial Artist/Weapon Master (who are typically supposed to be simpler to play, not harder). Especially for newer players, I generally don't recommend buying more than two types of CSLs/PSLs applicable to the same attack. So if you wanted to be an expert swordsman, you probably took +2 to +4 with Blades (as 3-point CSLs), +2 to +4 vs. Hit Location Targeting penalties with Blades (as 2-point PSLs), and an appropriate martial arts package (which I admit still results having to find and sum up to 4 different values).

At this point I would be happy with just getting Hero System Vehicle (for 6th Edition), even if it were only published in PDF format. To this day one of my biggest frustrations with the 6th Edition line is that numerous books cite a sourcebook that doesn't exist. It simply is not acceptable to make reference to a book, by title, that you haven't published yet. If they had wanted to make reference to it in Fantasy Hero and other books, they should have published Hero System Vehicle first!

​It is true that few experienced GMs will forget to impose CV restrictions, and it is noteworthy that such restrictions rarely apply to PSLs*; given that PSLs only negate penalties that might make it harder to hit, they don't actually make it any easier to hit the target if you aren't doing something that penalizes you. This makes PSLs a really great purchase for Martial Artists and Heroic weapon master type characters, because they allow you to effectively​ increase your OCV (or at least do difficult things easier) without engaging in a CV arms race with the GM (that will only end up killing fellow PCs that don't participate, like the mage and thief). *As a special campaign guideline, I rarely allow more than four Targeting PSLs on any given attack because I don't like the idea of effortless head-shots.

I would like to see a full Campaign & Campaign Setting published specifically for Champions or Fantasy Hero Complete​. Such would require a Setting Gazetteer to be sure, but I want more than just a world that I could​ run a game in if I had time to write a scenario that fit it. I would like a campaign length modules: 400+ pages of interlocking scenarios and an appendix containing literally everything you need to run that campaign with CC/FHC; optional rules used by the campaign, sample equipment, gadgets/magic items, and spells/powers, example creatures, npcs, etc.

Personally, I think PSLs are quite reasonably priced considering that they have so many potentially abusive uses. For example, Hit Location PSLs allow you to multiply your Damage or even strike entirely unprotected areas (of which there are almost always a few in 'realistic' armor). Conversely, my wife (who came from 4th edition) thinks they are brokenly cheap.

Instant Powers typically cannot, no. But a Physical Manifestation (like Delayed Effect) can generally be treated much like the activation of a separate, Constant power that grants you access to the power it is a modifier for. So I would generally allow a character to take modifiers with a "To Manifest" tag that affect activation of the Physical Manifestation instead of activation of the power itself. For example, Gestures To Manifest (-1/4), or 3 Continuing Charges Lasting 1 Minute To Manifest.

There were rules for placing Modifiers on Maneuvers in Hero System Martial Arts​, but as I recall the maneuver's APs were calculated differently. The system didn't really appeal to me though, so I am likely misremembering it. Generally speaking, I don't think you should be placing Modifiers on Maneuvers because they aren't base powers. They are, themselves, a kind of modifier/element of the Martial Arts Skill, and any effect you want to achieve using modifiers should be built as an appropriate power instead (such as dsatow's example above)

I am not misusing the word, since I didn't write the text where "Ordinarily" was quoted from, Steve Long did (so he'd be the one potentially misusing the word). Nor did I ever call it a "weasel word"; kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth! At best, it could be argued that I might be misinterpreting the word. However I am not. See the entirety of the paragraph Lucius quoted part of from 6e1 page 127: This paragraph makes it explicitly clear that using No Range as a 'poor-man's Mobile' is an optional rule (a.k.a Not A Standard Rule​). The section Lucius quoted from 6e1 page 324 is actually part of the description for Mobile, and was quoted out of context. That paragraph references back to page 127, and is simply making allowances for the existence of the optional rule on page 127, and the mobility clause in Usable As Attack (which has already been discussed up-thread and is also mentioned in the quote above). In this case "Ordinarily" is reinforcing that the standard rule is that 'Once established, an Area-affecting Constant Power cannot be moved unless the power has the Mobile Advantage (6E1 324)', but that in some campaigns use of the optional rule on page 127 might make the use of Mobile unnecessary. However Steve really should have put such a clause at the end of the description instead of the beginning, and more explicitly noted that it was referencing an Optional Rule. Using the term "Ordinarily" obviously wasn't explicit enough. Colored or not, my "obvious dislike" for 6e1&2 doesn't prevent me from reading what said sourcebooks actually say; without imposing my personal bias on them. It is also worth noting that I don't actually dislike the 6th edition ruleset, there are lots of things about it that I like more than I did in 5th Edition (such as the existence of Barrier). What I dislike is said ruleset's presentation in the 6e1&2 specifically.

Note the terms "Ordinarily" and "At the GM's option". Both of those quotes are basically citing that using No Range as a 'poor man's Mobile" is a Toolkitting option (I.E. a commonly suggested Houserule) and not the standard rule. The fact that CC/FHC omits this clause only reinforces the fact that they are optional rules; given that CC/FHC omits almost every toolkitting section and optional rule, leaving such decisions to the GM and instead presenting the RAW in a concise, explicit format free of the clusterfuck of pseudo-contradictions and poorly declared optional rules prevalent in 6e1&2.

Although your Characteristics are inherent (in that they are a natural part of your anatomy), they aren't "Inherent" (in that they cannot be Adjusted). It is sort of odd though that you can Drain Extra Limbs, but not 'Basic Limbs'. Not being able to Drain your ability to breathe air makes some sense though, because that isn't an Everyman Power, its an Everyman Complication (which buying the appropriate Life Support is equivalent to buying off).

I think there are enough mechanical distinctions between said modes of movement to justify having separate power entries from Flight (despite being a fanatical adherent to CC/FHC over 6e1&2, I'm not actually riding the 'mechanical reductionism bandwagon'). However, It would make a lot of sense for Swinging to be treated mechanically like Leaping instead of Flight, even given the source material Swinging draws upon (Spider-Man et-al). In both cases there should be mechanically defined limits on the distance covered by a single Leap/Swing*, limits on how/when you can change direction mid-Leap/Swing, and restrictions/assumptions regarding the arc of movement not being in a straight line**. *(NCM multiplier is a good mechanic for this since it scales with velocity, but can be bought separately to represent the iconic 'hulk-jump' or swinging from an especially long swingline.) **(Leaping tends to arc upward, while Swinging tends to arc downward. Thus should they realistically require space above/below the leap/swing vector to complete the move.) Perhaps one of my projects will include an Toolkitting Option for "Swinging Like Leaping".

I think the decision to make more products available for POD has little (if anything) to do with the principle behind the decision to declare CC/FHC Hero Games Flagship Products*, and a lot more to do with wanting to keep the doors open and the lights on. If people are willing to buy older editions of the rules, Hero Games should be providing them the ability to do so. Sure Hero Games won't make as much as they used to make on said products, but they wouldn't have made that money at all considering that many of those books are completely unavailable now (or only available for excessive amounts from E-Bay and Amazon, who don't share their profits with Hero Games). *I don't actually recall Jason declaring that CC/FHC were the new "official rules" I vaguely recall him stating something along the lines that CC/FHC were Hero Games current flagship products, and that it was hoped that future products (including 3rd party products) would support them. I am well aware that CC/FHC are officially considered to be members of the 6th Edition Ruleset ("Powered By Hero System 6th Edition" is the official line IIRC), and were not written with the intent to totally replace 6th Edition. I have reasons and arguments (outlined in other threads, so I'll omit them here) supporting my opinion that CC/FHC constitute their own edition (albeit one that is extremely similar to the previous edition). However those are irrelevant for the moment. When I say the CC/FHC are my primary rules references, that doesn't mean they are my only rules references, or the only acceptable primary rules reference. It means that I personally check CC/FHC first, followed by 6th Edition Era Sourcebooks and Supplements. In the case of reprinted or contradictory rules, I give priority to the RAW from CC/FHC. So for example, Classes of Minds and categorized skills (like Animal Handler) don't exist in my games because those rules changed in CC/FHC. Because I am aware that I am in the minority in many of these views, I cite my references exhaustively when posting to rules questions on these forums, and note my rules referencing priority so that anyone reading my posts can make informed decisions regarding the credibility of my advice/opinions.

I much prefer Agatha Heterodynes "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indestinguishable from science!" http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205#.WTtVibpFx_w

Which post numbers were you attempting to link to? When I click through they both take me to the beginning of the thread. EDIT: I read most of that thread... All I can say is that I found almost every one of Simon's posts in that thread insulting, infuriating, incorrect, and/or childishly written. Except for the bits about the economics of Game Publishing, some of that was actually a valuable contribution to the discussion, and I'm not educated enough on economics to be able to debate its veracity.

Scientific Theory isn't really about conclusively proving theories, it is about being unable to disprove the theory. Science would still eventually produce a theory, flawed and incomplete though it may be. The fact that the theory would have lots of holes (like what qualities differentiate those who can and can't do magic), would be irrelevant until someone came up with an equally non-disprovable theory that better differentiated those qualities. For example, they might postulate that the energy for the generated fire, or teleportation of starships thousands of light years was coming from another dimension that only magic-user's had a connection to or ability to manipulate. That theory would probably stand until someone disproved it, regardless of a lack of supporting evidence for such a dimension or given people's connection to it.

That would be much cheaper than Darkness/Invisibility To Mental Group, but far less absolute a defense as well (especially considering you can include bonuses to Mind Scan OMCV in the APs of the Scan or buy them separately).

As an author/perfectionist I might. Just because the Hero System Bestiary didn't "do it right" doesn't mean I can't. However it would also be perfectly reasonable to just declare as a campaign guideline that such powers are Inherent at no additional cost (unless they were bought through Foci perhaps)*, and that Drain/Suppress Powers targeting those game elements were generally prohibited. *So that you could have an Amulet Of Sustenance as a minor magical item, which would still be effected by Drain/Suppress Magic Items without having to take an "Uninherent" Limitation making them even cheaper than they already are.

*pfft* Scientists. Its all "Anecdotal Nonsense" until the zombies are clawing out your eyes... Then its all "Oh gawd, they're clawing out my eyes!". But seriously, if magic suddenly became real, scientists would develop a set of theories to account for and describe it. Even if they never managed to figure out why​ it worked the way it did, they would probably eventually figure out how​ it worked, and how to reproduce those effects. Irregular At Magic High School​ is a good example of a modern world that has magic, but treats it much like science.

Per 6e1 359 that is correct (it even explicitly notes Darkness). CC doesn't include that clause, so I wasn't familiar with it. I hate trying to find anything in my copies of 6e1&2. It seems strange that putting "Usable As Attack" on what is already classified as an Attack Power is deemed an appropriate method of making the power 'stick to a target'. But if they're willing to pay +1 1/4 (or more) in Advantage for the privilege of having the power follow the target (so long as they stay within Line of Sight), I'd probably allow it (or something like it). Of course for my 'CC-As-Core' Campaigns, it wouldn't be UAA (since that rule is omitted from CC's version of UAA and it might be confusing to my players). I might instead rename the modifier something like "Sticks To Target" and give it the same Advantage Value as UAA (Standard Range; +1 3/4), I would then allow them to put No Range and Self Only as limitations on it if desired.

Yeah, Drain/Suppress Life Support is super cheap. It is the sort of thing I generally wouldn't allow (also up there are Drain/Suppress Extra Limbs, any Automaton Power such as Does Not Bleed, and Multipower Reserve/Variable Power Pool). Life Support is the sort of power which should almost always be considered Inherent, but is rarely actually purchased as such. For Example, the Zombie in CC has Life Support Total and a bunch of Automaton Powers, but didn't purchase any of them Inherent.

I don't think it is explicitly noted anywhere, but I would treat each Life Support Element as a separate instances of the same power (like the various forms of Damage Reduction, or Damage Negation). We simply tend bundle them all together to save line-space. By which I mean: You don't have to buy Drain Life Support (Does Not Breath) or Drain Life Support (Immortal); you simply buy Drain Life Support. Drain Life Support affects any one of following powers: Life Support (Does Not Breath), Life Support (Immortal), or Life Support (Immune To Poison). However it only affects one of them per activation. I assume the player would define which one they target, the same way you might have to pick between draining Damage Reduction (Physical) or Damage Reduction (Mental) when using Drain Damage Reduction. I was going to say that Life Support cannot go into frameworks... but apparently it isn't classified as a Special Power... So it is totally legal, if somewhat cheesy, to build a Cosmic Life Support VPP and just give yourself whatever immunity you need on the fly. Likewise, having three separate defense slots in the same framework is also legal (even though that is also kind cheesy). Technically speaking none of them are actually adding to one another (unlike having Blast 5d6 and Blast +5d5 to produce Blast 10d6), they all just happen to stack because that is how Defenses work regardless of how they are purchased. Most especially cheesy, each of those 5 ED slots would be a separate power for the purposes of being Drained. So the enemy would have to hit you with at least 3 Drains (or 1 Drain VPP) to deprive you of all of your defenses. I don't think I would generally allow such shenanigans at my table, but per RAW they appear to be perfectly legal.