Cantriped

To be fair, all I said was that I personally wouldn't allow the Dispel to completely destroy physical projectiles. The ones that don't fall into pits of lava or the like after being Dispelled should still be recoverable if those projectiles represent Recoverable Charges.

Beam weapons cannot be reduced (amongst other things). I usually split Beam up into several modifiers that I can apply more liberally to weapons they are appropriate to. For example: swords generally take Cannot Be Reduced and Does Not Leave Holes in my campaigns. Otherwise, by default you can modulate the damage (or cause knockback with) any weapon that doesn't take Beam (such as almost all normal projectile weapons).

As a GM, I'm generally okay with using Multipower Reserves for sets of equipment, so long as there is a reasonable justification for the Reserve's limit on the number and combination of "items" the character can use at once. For example, I've got an example "Super-Ninja" that uses a Multipower Reserve for their "Ninja Tools". The reserve is large enough to keep any two ninja-tools equipped at a time because all of their starting ninja tools are one-handed items, and this ninja only has two hands... If they later acquired a two-handed ninja-tool (a deadly sharp Nodachi for example, or one of those giant shuriken), I would try to make sure it used up enough of the reserve that nothing else could be slotted.

Which is perfect if it makes sense for their EGO+Mental Defense to affect how hard it is to Teleport their Armor. In some contexts that construct will work just fine, in others not, so much. Although I do like that it achieves the desired result in a way that leaves a reasonably common defense.

Nay. You are confusing a snippet of example text for an actual rule. All that Dispel allows you to do is "turn off another character's Power", period. In the example on CC 58 (and the further explanatory text further down), it is referring to the ability to ruin/destroy objects appropriately defined in a manner that Dispel can affect (which per the mechanics of Dispel, definitively requires that the creation of such objects be an effect of the power's activation). That example, and it's explanatory text, are not intended to act as rules text themselves, or to define new (and exceedingly overpowered) functions for Dispel that aren't otherwise supported by the rules in any way, shape, of form. The only ways for Dispel to legally destroy an "object" are if said object is created as part of the activation of a power (and there are enough legal examples of such in CC to justify the existence of the contested example, and its explanatory text). For example, any items created using Transform, or the Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules (see Fantasy Hero), can be destroyed by Dispel since they are the lingering effects of the activation of a power, just like walls created by Barrier are. Similarly a Vehicle summoned using the Rules For Summoning Bases & Vehicles can be Banished with the appropriate Dispel like any other Summon). Finally, the context most likely in mind when the contested example was written: Any "potion-like objects" created using the Delayed Effect rules can be destroyed by Dispel; because a "prepared" Power counts as active (which means it can be Dispelled even if it isn't "in-use"). Delayed Effect shares with Dispel its roots in Fantasy Hero; where the former was intended to be used to create Potions and such, and the latter was intended to be able to break spells and destroy magically created objects. So it stands to reason they'd contain vestigial language which accommodates each other's existence. However, even in such cases, you are only able to use "destroying an object" as the SFX of the Dispel because "creating an object" was the defined special effect of using/preparing to use the power. In other words, Dispel can sometimes be used to destroy objects, because sometimes the rules suggest creating them in a manner which is vulnerable to Dispel (Delayed Effect, Summon, Transform). That does not make all objects (such as Defender's OIF Powered Armor) vulnerable to destruction by Dispel; nor are there any concrete rules given for determining the success of Dispel when used to destroy Objects instead of turn off another character's Powers. Being able to guess at the rules for, or deduce semantically what the result would be of destroying a focus via Dispel, is not the same as being able to cite rules supporting the possibility.

The RAW already lets you target the Summoned Being with Dispel to banish them (your result, minus their power defense, must overcome the APs of the power used to summon them). What I was saying is that you cannot generally Banish a Summoned Being by targeting the Focus used to Summon them (I would think that would be an additional Limitation on the Summon power itself.

Defender (per CC 192) didn't take Extra Time (Only To Activate/Equip) on any of the powers bought through the Focus (Powered Armor). So regardless of the SFX of the Dispel, he can still reactivate his Resistant Protection as a Zero-Phase Action. Likewise, regardless of it's SFX, the Dispel cannot affect any of Defender's Weapons Array until he actually activates them, and even then can only Dispel the incoming attack if the character uses a Held Action to do so. Defender's Powered Armor is 45 APs, and his Power Pack is 60 APs; which require 13d6 and 18d6 of Dispel respectively to knock them out in one shot; or 2 and 3 shots of your 8d6 Cumulative Dispel. Either way, both powers can be reactivated the following Phase (or even immediately if Defender is able to Abort An Action that segment).

That doesn't make much sense. If you try to use the power to banish the demon after it has been summoned, you must target either the Summoner or the Summoned Being to do so (not any Foci involved). Further, since the Goat was probably an Expendable Foci, it was already destroyed when the Demon was summoned. Such a dispel would only make sense if you could use it to interrupt the Summoning after the costs have been paid (including 'expending' one Goat), but before the Summoned Being appeared. However you cannot, the clause in Dispel you refer to only allows you to "Dispel an incoming attack", and since a summoned being isn't an "incoming attack" it doesn't apply. I wouldn't allow Dispel RKA to "completely destroy" the projectiles, it would have to simply deflect them because the recoverability of the Projectile is defined by how Launcher is built. For example: If "arrows" are represented by Expendable Foci (in addition to the Launcher itself), than they are completely destroyed when used, regardless of the outcome of said use. If "arrows" are represented by Recoverable Charges, than they are recoverable when used, regardless of the outcome of said use.

Despite being 'objects' by special effect, Foci do not have the same characteristics as actual Objects (I.E. BODY scores, size modifiers, mass, etc.), nor do they follow the general rules for Objects (which is why rules for damaging them get spelled out in the modifier's description instead). There are optional rules for giving Foci more object-like characteristics. Since any amount of BODY damage renders functions inoperable, Penetrating Killing Attacks are especially effective against Foci. Personally, I would probably use a Limited UAA Teleport. Since that literally does what you want it to do, and will work against any suit of Powered Armor built using the Focus or Vehicle rules. Powered Armor built using OIAID like Defender's (or without even that, like Doctor Destroyer's) are nearly impossible to be deprived of for any length of time. Dispel only allows you to turn off parts of the suit (most of which can be reactivated as Zero-Phase Actions), and Drain/Suppress only allows you to reduce/negate the effectiveness of parts of the suit for a limited time. Transforms can wreak havoc on almost any form of armor (as befits a Catch-All power); but one should probably use the rules for Adding or Removing powers to determine the threshold for successfully "transforming" the armor into "unequipped armor" (and I would require at least a Minor Transform to turn "Equipped Armor" into "Unequipped Armor"). Dispel can also work quite well for stripping off armor, but only if the Armor's Resistant Protection takes Extra Time (Only To Equip) so that it takes longer than a Zero-Phase to reactivate it (and so that there is a mechanical link between equipping the armor and activating it). This 'system' has the advantage that it gives players appropriate discounts for the additional vulnerability it creates, and a character can limit their vulnerability by acquiring armor that is Difficult To Dispel or has less Extra Time to equip. Or in a champions campaign, opt out of the system entirely like Defender does by not having his "Powered Armor" take any of the modifiers generally used to represent equipment of it's nature.

This is the rule (and it's examples) in both CC (page 138) and 6e (page 20): At the end of the section for Holding An Action, there is a long example of the Optional Rule involving Defender and Ogre which annoyingly never explicitly identifies itself as being an example of the optional rule and not the standard rule. This example allows Defender to Hold An Action "generically" (I.E. without him declaring what he is waiting for). And when Ogre charges him, the example allows Defender to use said Held Action to attempt to interrupt Ogre's attack with his own. Since both characters want to act simultaneously, Defender and Ogre make Initiative rolls. Because Defender wins, he gets to go first. All of which is consistent with the optional rule I quoted above and how it should interact with the rules for Who Goes First.

You would be correct in that it is a semantic argument (I.E. "logic concerned with the meanings of words). All rules debates are, by definition, semantic arguments (yours are no exception), so calling my "interpretation" semantics is little more than an ill-reasoned attempt to attack my credibility. Regardless, the issue is that you clearly do not understand which part of the rules for Holding Actions are optional rules, and which are not. You may Hold An Action "until a lower Dex", or "until some event occurs" (CC 138, 6e2 20). Period. Those are not examples of Held Actions, those are the basic rules for declaring Held Actions. "I wait until he strikes" and "I wait until he comes around the corner" were the examples given of legal Held Actions (they even put them in both quotes and parentheticals in 6e just to make it crystal clear which section was the explanatory text). What you are describing is the Optional Rule described in 6e2 on page 20 (bottom of the 4th paragraph): "With the GM’s permission, a character can Hold his Action “generically,” without declaring any sort of precondition for acting, and then may perform whatever Action he wants to whenever he wants to."

What source are you referencing? Defense Maneuver is a Skill (not a Talent). All it says in 6e1 and CC is that Defense Maneuver "requires a Half-Phase Action to use," (which Defense Maneuver IV replaces with taking no time to use). However, based just on the quote alone. I would assume that whatever Talent you are talking about can only be used if you are performing Combat Maneuvers such as Dodge, which don't involve making an Attack.

You are correct, my bad. I misread that sentence. Normally a power only requires an attack action if make an attack roll, but the wording in CC makes it clear enough that Aid is an Attack Action regardless of whether or not it requires an Attack Roll (and this is supported by the language defining Attack Actions). So accounting for that correction, you would have to use Move-By to activate Aid during a Full Move regardless of whom you target (and therefore suffer the -2 OCV & DCV penalties that entails); however if you target yourself or a willing target with that Aid, the attack roll is waived per the description of Aid (effectively reducing the penalties to just -2 DCV).

Careful, Steve might just decide to publish another half-baked Errata supporting his position, like he did for the Great "Is Healing Halved" Debate. I thank my dark gods he won't touch CC/FHC with a 3m pole. To be fair, while I (often) don't agree with him, the fact that Steve Long still answers requests for rulings (and generally does a better job at it than the entire Paizo Development Team combined) is a fact worthy of a great deal more respect than I probably give him. It is a fact which I boast about elsewhere in the depths of the internet as a shining example of decency in this industry.

Per CC 51, using Aid on another is an Attack Action. Therefore you may perform a Move-By Aid on another; forgoing the Attack roll per CC 51 if the Target is willing, and ignoring any Damage Classes added by the maneuver. Since Aid doesn't cause Damage, they do not apply. So basically, you can do it with just a -2 DCV penalty if they are willing, or a -2 OCV, -2 DCV if they aren't. If you make your Aid a Ranged power, you can use Strafe, but the OCV modifier for doing so is variable, so it could be higher or lower depending upon circumstances. Per CC 41 (and not contradicted anywhere I've found), using Aid on yourself is a Zero-Phase Action which could be performed during a normal Full-Move (with no special maneuvers or penalties required). The same is true of any power doesn't require an Attack roll, such as Resistant Protection or Desolidification.

Yes exactly, for Heroic Campaigns (where the obscene potential CP savings are irrelevant) I give armor and weapons all of the Modifiers they logically deserve. Including Extra Time (Only to Activate), Obvious (usually to Sight & Hearing). I also use optional rules that calculate the BODY of Foci from their Mass (the same way you calculate any other object's BODY), and otherwise treat them just like objects. But I like detailed, granular builds, and would strictly control access to Dispels that can affect such equipment. I usually prefer SFX-based or highly limited Dispels for this reason; I find it hard to justify Dispel targeting Game Elements directly unless I'm also controlling access to that Game Element as well. For a superheroic campaign that level of detail just isn't usually appropriate (or rather, useful). For such campaigns, I consider the amount of time required to put-on/take-off the suit to balance itself out (just like the pros and cons of Universal Foci), because generally speaking it will take an enemy just as long to get you out of the suit as it took you to get into the suit. Those extra Turns, Minutes, whatever may be the difference between Defender ending up with a Public Identity (or in the super-obituaries), and escaping with his secret (or life). However, generally I wouldn't use one-shot mechanics that can strip of character of their powered-armor in such a campaign either. Being rendered powerless by something you have little-to-no chance of defending against and cannot recover from in time to be useful isn't a very fun way to spend an afternoon.

It's Special Effects are irrelevant to the game mechanics of Dispel Resistant Protection; unless the character/power is more Vulnerable to that particular SFX of Dispel somehow. However choice of special effects are/should be relevant to whether or not you are allowed to purchase the power at all. A good GM should strictly control the creation of Dispels to avoid nonsense like Armor that "pops back on" next phase when reactivated. However that statement applies to almost every potential abuse or nonsensicality players can come up with and are legal per the rules as written.

Per RAW: The armor is still equipped, but provides no Resistant Protection until it's wearer takes a Zero-Phase Action to reactivate it (something they can Abort to if they haven't already acted that segment). The special effect of the Dispel Resistant Protection is irrelevant, rules as written all it allows the character to do is deactivate the Resistant Protection power. Removing the armor or Destroying it require different powers (such as UAA Teleportation or Penetrating RKA). So yes, if the GM allows "the Armor falls off" as an SFX for the Dispel, than I imagine it would have to "magically pop-back on" when the character reactivated it, since it still only requires a Zero-Phase action to reactivate. But such a GM should also require armor take Extra Time (only to equip) so that removing someone's armor means something, and so that armor gets the discount it deserves for that SFX being mechanically more susceptible to Dispel than other forms of Resistant Protection.

My precise issue with using Dispel to destroy devices is that there aren't any explicit rules governing how it works. All we have in CC is three sentences supporting the concept, two of which are explanatory text and contain no actual rules. That argument took what information is available on the concept to it's ultimate logical conclusion using the terms they used exactly as they are described by the ruleset. If you use certain optional rules, such as the optional rule for Summoning Bases & Vehicles, or the Alternate Item Creation rules from Fantasy Hero, or are running a campaign where Alchemists make 'potions' using Delayed Effect. Than such references make sense because, for example we have mechanics for determining the APs of the "Power" that created Defender's suit of Powered Armor, mechanics for how long it takes to craft a replacement (and how much LTE that costs), and also rules for how much it costs to be able to craft a suit of Defender Armor, versus the cost of being a Superhero wearing Defender Armor. However, to be pedantic, barring one of those optional rules Dispel explicitly only allows a character to "turn off another character's Power". Objects are not Characters (except when built as them...), so per RAW you can only Dispel them if they were created by a Power that a character you can target used (barring exceptions like when Summon explicitly allows you to target the Summoned Being in order to banish it). Nay. Equipping a Focus, and Turning it's powers On or Off have nothing to do with one another. As evidenced by the fact that "Changing Clothes", "Drawing A Weapon", and "Turning On" or "Turning Off A Power" are all separate entries in the Actions Table (CC 138). How long it takes to equip a focus is determined by the Focus and Real Armor/Weapon modifiers; OIF sets the minimum at 1 Turn, Real Weapon sets the minimum at 1/2 Phase. Those are the only stipulations in CC regarding how long it takes to equip a focus. How long it takes to activate a foci's power(s) is determined by the type of power, and modifiers such as Extra Time, and Trigger. However by default most powers can be activated as a Zero-Phase Action, and characters can activate as many as they wish at once. Finally, nothing in the sixth edition ruleset even hints at the idea that deactivating a foci's powers is the same as unequipping the focus. Case in point, drawing a Longsword doesn't have anything to do with Activating the HKA it grants you, the HKA doesn't activate (and thus cannot be Dispelled) until you try to make an Attack with it. So even if you Dispel every power associated with a suit of Powered Armor, nothing actually prevents Defender from turning all those powers back on next phase (or Aborting An Action to do so) because his Powered Armor isn't an object created by the activation of a power that can be Banished, and none of it's elements require Extra Time to activate. For the record, I am of the opinion that allowing a successful Dispel to disarm/strip characters of equipment is probably a reasonably fair house rule. Likewise I've got no problem with characters using Dispel on "Potions" or other such items created using the Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules or prepared using Delayed Effect, and Summoned Vehicles/Bases. However I'm also of the opinion that mundane weapons and armor should be required to take Extra Time (only to equip) when appropriate to represent that in some cases equipping the item is realistically how you activate it. For example: Common sense says that you cannot "turn-off" a suit of mundane armor without removing it, but you I don't see a problem with being able to turn off a Force-Field Belt without removing it (the former would take Extra Time (only to equip), the Latter would not).

There isn't one, you misunderstand. The defensive quality of the Held Action itself is irrelevant to when the action normally takes place. Held Actions only allow you to wait "until an event occurs" or "until a lower DEX". If you pick an event they always occur after the event specified (and before some other event you don't know about yet). That is just how Held Actions work, they cannot interrupt an action already in progress (I.E. that has been declared, but not yet resolved). However, if two characters have Held Actions whose conditions are fulfilled simultaneously (such as if both characters wait "until DEX 1" or "until Ogre attacks", and that happens), then after that event occurs the rules for Who Goes First applies; whomever was performing a defensive action (as defined under Aborting An Action) automatically goes first, otherwise everyone involved rolls Initiative and the winner goes first.

Who would visit it? I'm probably the most vitriolic poster on the forums. I need to be thinned out by an entire community. Besides, there aren't enough Herophiles to populate more than one Unofficial Forum, and Chris Goodwin already has a very nice one. No you can't because the rules for Holding An Action clearly stipulate that "He may wait until a lower DEX or until some event occurs" (emphasis added). By the strictest reading of that rule: "I wait until he attacks", "I wait until he moves", "I wait until the Robber acts", and "I wait until DEX 15" (assuming your DEX is 16 or higher) are all legal conditions for triggering a Held Action. The first through third examples are legal because you're waiting "until some event occurs", and the third is legal because you're waiting "until a lower DEX". "I wait until the he is going to attack", "I wait until he's about to move, or "I wait until the Robber is gonna act" (every other possible variation on these examples) are not a legal conditions because Holding An Action does not permit you to wait "until just before some event occurs". If you want to interrupt an Action already in progress, you must either Abort An Action (possibly your Held Action), or have purchased a Triggered Power that activates under that condition. There is, however, an exception in the form of the "Guarding Areas And Ignoring Opponents" optional combat rules; which allow a character to interrupt another character's movement through a 2m radius around themselves with an attack, but only if the other character wasn't entering the area specifically to attack the character. ... and even that is marked with a caution sign. Held Actions are actually fairly limited in their potential for abuse unless the GM starts using optional rules. The rules for Who Goes First should only ever come up if two characters have the same Initiative, their Held Actions have the same condition, or their Held Actions have conditions that happen to occur simultaneously (E.G. Such as if pair of characters are Holding An Action "until he attacks" and "until he moves" respectively, and a third character both moves and attacks simultaneously using a Combat Maneuver such as Passing Strike. However, for the sake of argument, if you chose to allow "I wait until he starts to attack", "I wait until he is going to move", and similarly phrased conditions: Both characters are attempting to act simultaneously, and the rules for Who Goes First apply. Unless one of their actions is codified as a Defensive Action (under Aborting An Action) both characters must roll initiative, and the winner goes first. So even under the most liberal interpretation I'm willing to entertain. It is still impossible to interrupt an action (such as an attack) with a non-defensive action (such as to attack your attacker first, or to Teleport away from your attacker without using Dive for Cover), without first making a successful initiative check.

An accurate but irrelevant point that contradicts the very point you are trying to make. If Dispel can explicitly only target Powers (which I agree with BTW), than by definition it cannot target Objects or Foci (which are things that sometimes have Powers, or grant Powers, but are not Powers themselves). If Dispel cannot target Objects and Foci directly, than it cannot destroy them, and the references to Dispel having the ability to destroy objects are erroneous (or more accurately, it is a vestigial element of Dispel's Fantasy Hero roots; where magic items are assumed to be created by the activation of a separate Power based on the Differing Modifiers or using Delayed Effect rules, and therefore are things which can be Dispelled, like Barriers). However if you start from the position that Dispel can target Objects or Foci (based upon the fact that it distinguishes between powers and objects when discussing things Dispel is effective against, and despite explicit rules to the contrary), than it also doesn't matter how many Powers were associated with the Object/Focus. All that matters is if I can beat the Highest Active Point value associated with the Object/Foci. If I can, than per the description of an example of Dispel, the object/foci was Destroyed, and per the definition of what it means to destroy a foci, that means that I've deprived the focus of all of it's Powers (until it can be "repaired, recharged, or rebuilt" whatever the GM thinks that means). Some support for this interpretation can be found in the fact that in CC an Unbreakable Focus is Difficult To Dispel (the focus itself, not any powers bought through it). However I consider this another vestigial rules element, since we only have three sentences in the entire book which support the idea that Dispel can destroy Object and Foci, but no concrete rules for how that it supposed to actually work. All of the extant rules for Dispel in CC only pertain to how it functions when used against Powers: Making an Effect Roll against the APs of the Power to deactivate it, taking Variable Effects to target different Powers, taking Expanded Effects to target multiple Powers at once, etc...

Yes, in the same way that "Dumb Luck" can be the special effect of gaining +20 OCV. But calling it Dumb-Luck doesn't make that +20 OCV to function as 20d6 of Luck just because the special effect is similar to an extant game mechanic. Game mechanics and special effects are entirely separate things, and never the twain shall meet. Fluffing a Dispel as "object destroying" simply doesn't make it function as an RKA for Objects. And as I've demonstrated in my earlier examples, any attempt to make it act as such results in a horrendously unbalanced construct that renders obsolete those powers which were specifically designed to serve that function. Per the Rules as Written (which are the only rules I give a damn about). I can buy Dispel "Armor" (using Variable Effect) with the special effect of the armor being disassembed via telekinesis, and use it on a suit of armor. Mechanically, that armor remains completely undamaged (despite having been "disassembled"), and because nobody has ever bothered to put Extra Time (Only To Equip) on a suit of Armor, I can reactivate it as a Zero-Phase Action any time I want (and I suppose the armor just magically reassembles itself). Of course, there are not even any clauses in the rules for Dispel that deal with how the power works on things that cannot really be "turned off"; such as most equipment. You cannot realistically "turn off" a suit of mundane armor, or a broadsword for example, and mechanically speaking there isn't anything you can do to keep them turned off even if you do successfully use Dispel on them. A fair GM might rule that a successful Dispel causes you to drop or unequip whatever equipment is Dispelled (classic examples of characters using TK to unbuckle peoples pants come to mind), since that is the most realistic way to "turn-off" a suit of armor. However, mechanically speaking, equipping an object, and activating an object are mechanically distinct actions, and Dispel can only affect the latter.

That example is not in keeping with the "proper" Sixth Edition mechanics for Holding An Action (I.E. those from 6e1&2). Defender cannot in that situation decide to interrupt (or preempt) Ogre's action. Because he Held his Action "to see what Ogre will do next"; per RAW that held action won't come up until after whatever ever it was that Ogre did next. That is the default, official rule regarding Holding an Action in both CC and 6e. However, Defender is still free to Abort his Held Action if he really wants to go ahead of Ogre. There is an optional rule which I think you are confusing for the actual rule. On page 20 of 6e2 it says "Typically, a character must either Hold his Action until a specified lower DEX, or to wait for a specified event...", this is the default rule, then it goes on to say "With the GM’s permission, a character can Hold his Action “generically,” without declaring any sort of precondition for acting, and then may perform whatever Action he wants to whenever he wants to." However I cannot stress enough that this is an Optional Rule (which is why it wasn't included in CC). CC is not inaccurate, it purposefully omits many of the poorly delineated, and often contradictory optional rules that made 6e1&2 such an indecipherable mess.

You are confusing the rules for "Who Goes First", "Holding An Action", and "Aborting An Action". If a condition would cause two characters to go at the same time (Held Actions are one Source, multiple instances of Triggered Powers might be another) we use the Who Goes First rules to determine initiative. But those rules have nothing to do with Holding An Action per say (they just don't come up much unless Held Actions are involved). When you hold an action it always takes place after the triggering condition without exception. If the condition was "I wait until DEX 15", you don't go before DEX 15 (because that would result in acting on DEX 16). Likewise if "I wait until Ogre strikes", I must either wait until after Ogre strikes to take my action (assuming I am still conscious)... or I can Abort my Held Action to perform a Defensive Action before Ogre strikes (per the rules for Aborting An Action). Here is another example for you: Bob and Nin are fighting a Robber. The Robber is hiding inside the Vault, where Bob and Nin can't get him. Both decide to Hold their Action on Segment 6, both saying "I wait until the Robber runs outside the Vault.". On Segment 8 the Robber runs outside the Vault; Bob wants to strike him with an RKA, and Nin wants to Mind Control him into giving up. Both of their actions have to trigger after the defined condition, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to attack the Robber (because he'd still be in the vault), and that just doesn't make sense. So the Robber gets to complete his Move Action before Bob and Nin get to act. Since Bob and Nin both want to go at the same time, and since neither of their actions are covered by the list of Defensive Actions, they must each make their DEX Rolls (or I suppose a DEX and an EGO roll respectively since one of them is a mentalist). If Bob wins, he gets to use his RKA to kill the Robber before Nin can Mind Control it. If Nin wins she gets to use her Mind Control on the Robber before Bob can kill it. If Nin had wanted to activate a Defense Power instead of using Mind Control, than per the rules for Who Goes First, she would have gone before Bob automatically, who would have then killed the Robber with his RKA