Cantriped

Superhero, as a genre, does have it's own rules. Anime is does not have a universal set of themes/rules it plays with. The genre conventions of Mecha Anime are not the same as Cyberpunk Anime, Fighting Anime, Slice-Of-Life Anime, Haram Anime, Magical-Girl Anime, Historical Anime; And some Anime is essentially Superhero Anime (Dragonball, One Punch Man, any magical-girl could fit this);
 
What works in Dragonball Hero will absolutely not work in Kazei 5.
 
Every generic anime gaming source book I've seen (a good half dozen) have been, to be blunt, utter trash. Which is what made things like Kazei 5, the old BGC RPG, and yeah, even the old Robottech RPG, work much better: they focused their rules within the genre they were.
 
And frankly, to call "Anime" a genre is just culturally insensitive, bordering on racist generalizations. It's a whole medium where a lot of genres have their stories told.

I think you are overly thinking it. You can apply object to any congruent object with a single body value.  Grabbing that object with TK does not require an area of  effect.  So grabbing a yacht would simply be grabbing a yacht with TK which has say 15 BODY.  You don't need AoE for this. 
 
If what you are saying is that on the yacht, there is a door and you can't just grab the door, that's different.  Then you have what RDUNeil is asking: How do you describe a single object?  For example:  Lets say you have a competed jigsaw puzzle.  In your example, does it qualify as a single object or a bunch of objects?

I think conversion is difficult, especially so when the systems have, on the surface, so many similarities.  It is easy for assumptions to be made that things equate when they do not really.  It is almost easier when the systems are widely divergent and then how certain things are done can be explained.
 
When it comes to characters, I think it is often better to take a character from the original system, strip out every mechanical reference that you can, leaving a highly descriptive version of the character and then apply the new system using that description.  It is likely to surprise you how doing that makes better use of the new system than looking to go direct from system to system.
 
Doc

I'm going to chunk this thorough analysis up.  In 5e, I found STR of 13 or 18 pretty common, 13 especially for those "low STR" characters.  3 points for +1 PD, +1 REC and +2 STUN meant you were paying to have a 10 STR instead of a 13.  +10 STR gained +2 PD (1 point), +2 REC (4 points) and +5 STUN (5 points).  6e fixed this both by decoupling and by lowering the cost of REC and STUN, but if you would have bought 2 of the 3 up, you were better off buying STR and selling back the third Figured.  The pricing was out, and had been since 1e.  Oh, and you got Leaping.
 
 
Again, Figured.  +10 CON meant +2 ED (2 points), +2 REC (4 points), +5 STUN (5 points) and +20 END (10 points), so 21 points of Figured for 20 points of CON.  Again, if you would raise all, or all but 1, clearly you should buy CON.  I think CON is now something of a character tax.  There will be a campaign standard defense and DCs.  You need enough CON to not be stunned from the damage after that defense from campaign standard attacks.  I don't think CON changes much, except for those with high Figured stats.
 
STR and CON have pretty much the same issue, so I skipped DEX for a minute.
 
 
DEX was the sleeper.  It was easy to compute the figured value of STR and CON, but you didn't have pricing for OCV or DCV unless you extrapolated back from Figured.  DEX really cost 2 points, not 3.  Who has ever rounded their SPD down?  Decoupling SPD and dropping DEX to 2 points changes pretty much nothing.
 
I agree one would expect more variance between OCV and DCV.  Skill levels are not as big a ripoff as they were in 5e, but when you can spend 10 points for 1 skill level with all attacks, or buy +1 OCV and +1 DCV for the same price, which feels like a better deal?  OK, the skill levels could go to mental CVs or DCs, but really?  Skill levels remain cost-appropriate only at the 3 point, maybe 5 point level.  Pricing them based on a Multipower makes notional sense, but practically does not price out right.
 
In my view, the sum of enhancing DEX skills and enhancing initiative should sum to cost of DEX.  More on that later.
 
 
Agreed - but I think here is where the review was not done.  I remember initially thinking "Wait - shouldn't DEX be 1 point?"  It boosts skill rolls, and provides a second benefit (initiative).  Isn't that what INT and PRE do (providing PER and PRE attack & defense).
 
On reflection, I still think they should be the same price, but that price should be 2 points across the board.  Then we should look at:
 
 - skill levels.  +1 to all rolls, at the same time, based on a single stat should be 5 points (the stat with a -1 limitation), and the price should keep dropping as the uses get more restricted, based on it being more limited.
 - PER should work like skill levels - Limited INT, at +5 for +1 to all PER rolls.
 - Lightning Reflexes are limited DEX - only for initiative is a -1 limitation to DEX; greater limitations for more restricted initiative.
 - PRE attacks should be +1d6/5 points, again a -1 limitation, bigger for limited use of PRE attacks like only to frighten.
 
Where did PRE defense go, you ask?  I would remove it from PRE, so let's move on.
 
 
EGO is lower powered DEX, INT and PRE.  There are EGO based rolls, but not in huge quantities.  It also resists mental attacks, which is nice.    But I think 1 point is the right price - it is not as good as the three above.  It becomes harder to price as more mental attacks makes it way more useful.
 
This is where I would put PRE defense.  You can be big and scary, but easily intimidated, or unimpressive, but not easily impressed.  EGO covers the latter better than PRE.
 
So how do we break that down?  I think it becomes a -1 limitation to only defend against PRE attacks, and -1 to provide both rolls and resistance to mental attacks. Yes, that is a bit of a bargain in a high-mental-power game, but any other approach means always limit EGO to "does not defend against mental attacks".
 
The more I consider it, the more I think mCV should have a base of 0.  That eliminates selling back mOCV  for characters lacking mental powers (and the attendant question of what deficiency, compared to Joe Average, this actually represents), and suggests the average person has no mental combat capability or experience.  It changes nothing cost-wise.  The Mentalist who previously bought a 7 mOCV now buys a 4, and has exactly the same chance to hit a target who bought no mDCV.
 
OK, I would separate PD/ED out.  Those are unchanged, other than not getting free defenses for physical stats.  Your defense totals will not change.  But no one ever relied entirely on their base PD/ED, did they?  It was always bought up, now you just don't get a discount.
 
REC/END/STUN - pre- 6e, how many of us ever looked at a character who ran out of END too fast and said "I will buy more REC and END" instead of "I will put Reduced END on some powers"?  Similarly, if you got KOd too much, clearly the problem was that you needed more defenses.  To me, these were overpriced.  That is the only reason STR/CON inflation did not escalate even more - you didn't REALLY get the value out of the extra STUN, REC and END.
 
Now, if I look at a character with a 12 DC attack (6 END) and 30 meters of movement (3 END), spending 15 points on 1/2 END for that attack doesn't feel like as great a deal any more.  I could buy +10 REC and +25 END instead.  Spending an extra 3 END per phase at SPD 5 means I will spend 15 a turn and recover 10, so I can last 5 turns.  That extra REC recovers STUN as well, and that extra END can be used for things other than my attack.
 
Instead of +5 PD/+5 ED, I could buy +10 STUN and +5 REC.  If I soak up three hits in the first turn, I'm at the same STUN at the start of the second.  OK, that's not as terrific, as my extra 10 STUN is still gone, but that extra 10 STUN also helps me out against AVAD, STUN drain and mental blasts, and my REC is recovering END as well as STUN, so at least this is a valid option.  Maybe I should buy +15 REC and no extra STUN - that saves be buying extra END or reduced END as well.
 
Early on, I built a Super based on much higher REC, minor defenses and some Damage Reduction.  He also used APG Regeneration (he took BOD from campaign standard attacks).  He worked pretty well.  He also had a 3 or 4 DCV - decent OCV, but not a defensive combatant.
 
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out above, 6e did not take the risk of changing builds markedly.  The sample Supers still hover around 23 DEX, and their OCV/DCV matches, and is typically aligned with the old DEX and EGO calcs.  Only one sample character has a difference (all of one point) between OCV and DCV.  Their REC, STUN and END are their old figured numbers from STR and CON in almost every case.  The characteristics prices all changed, but we just translated identical from 5e, rather than having new characters for the new edition.  To me, an opportunity lost.  Taurus doesn't even get the full STR add for his HKA, and buys Leaping up for his enhanced STR even though he runs faster. 
 
 
I don't think percentage increase to characteristic costs is a fair measure.  Other than characteristics, where are the huge cost changes?  I suggest there are none.  So going from 350 to 400 points indicates the % of points spent on characteristics should go from x/350 in 5e to x+50/400 in 6e. 
 
Your example spends 14 points on DEX related characteristics, and 12 more on STR/CON related abilities, so 30 points.  He has another 20 points to use for other purposes.  Now, he's very low DEX, so he's not getting hit as hard as many characters.
 
If he were a 35 DEX, 12 CV, 7 SPD martial artist, he goes from 75 + 25  100 points invested to 50 + 90 + 50 = 190 points invested.  But maybe he was getting too sweet a deal to begin with - DEX was far too cost-effective.  For 50 points (the other 50 moves SPD from 2 to 7 in either model), he got +9 OCV, +9 DCV and +7 to all DEX rolls.  Is that really only worth 50 points?  7 DEX skill levels alone would have cost 35, and only enhance one skill (not a base DEX roll) at a time, so that's 15 points (less, really) for +9 OCV and +9 DCV.  Appropriate pricing?
 
Of course, that is why you could not be a Super without being more agile than an Olympic gymnast, and your slippery Rogue had to have a better base OCV than the Fighter's combat training provided.  Buying DEX was cheaper than buying one or two components of DEX.  Now it isn't.
 
Some characters will get points back, others will have to scrape up some points,  but I think overall the result is closer to getting what you paid for.

D&D was based on Tolkein and Jack Vance (the magic system is Vance, while the races are Tolkein).
 
The Monk goes all the way back to the Blackmoor release, it's based on Remo Williams, and probably also no small part on the popularity of Kung Fu movies in that era as well. The class totally fits into the utter mish-mish of fantasy and medieval Europe that is D&D.

I admit, I haven't read the entire thread, so some of this may already have been mentioned:
 
As a general rule , I like the idea of introducing granularity to the damage mechanics... but in practice it is usually more trouble than it is worth to both balance it in play and represent the realistic differences accurately. For example, many of the example suits of armor should realistically have differing rPD, and rED values, as well as some additional nonresistant PD and ED; but that level of granularity introduces a massive amount of detail to the game elements being used. This isn't so much of a problem during play, assuming everyone understands the mechanics. The problem in my experience is when I'm teaching new players said mechanics and their eyes glaze over at the block of game information three to five times the size of the simple, abstract models used in the official material.
 
Were I setting up such a system, every weapon and suit of armor would have to be rebuilt from scratch based on extensive research and arbitrary game balance considerations.
 
I think most weapons would end up as multipowers with slots representing their various modes of use. The slot would allow me to define the special effects, and any benefits or drawbacks inherent to that mode of use. Most weapons would provide two or three DCs worth of damage more than the STR Min of the weapon (assuming two-handed use, regardless of it's actual handedness). For reference; a Battle Axe provides +17 APs worth of damage over it's two-handed STR min of 13 (it can also be used one-handed with 15 STR).
For example, an Arming Sword would cause a given amount of slashing or piercing Killing Damage when used to hack or stab respectively, but would also take Does No Knockdown/back. The Arming Sword would cause a reduced number of DCs worth of blugdeoning Normal Damage and lose the benefits of the weapon's reach (which would be Linked to the Hacking and Stabbing slots) when the wielder uses the flat of the blade, the hilt, or pommel to strike with instead of the edge or point of the blade.
 
Armor would end up as Compound Powers providing various levels of partially advantaged and/or partially limited DCV, PD, rPD, ED, rED, and unusual defenses as appropriate to how that type of armor reacts to given types of damage.
For example a suit of chainmail would provide reasonable Defense, with slightly more PD & rPD than ED & rED, and a minimal DCV bonus (representing the armor's ability to deflect a glancing blow). A small portion of it's PD & rPD (probably half of the amount by which the chainmail's Defense exceeds its padding's) would take Doesn't Protect Against Piercing Damage. A suit of chainmail might also purchase additional DCV, PD, and/or rPD with Only Protects Against Slashing Damage. A suit of chainmail might also only provide as much Defense against Falling and Collision Damage as its padding would have alone (the rest being limited as above).

I meant to post this awhile ago, but honestly forgot all about it. Last year in my Revelations 1001 historical fantasy campaign Our Heroes got involved in a massive Viking naval battle. (Viking "naval battles" mostly consisted of pulling the longships alongside each other and then fighting hand-to-hand, so it's really more of a melee battle that happens to take place onboard ships.) While I didn't want to wargame out the entire battle, just the number of fighters on the PCs' ship alone would be too many to handle individually. So I grouped most of the warriors on both sides together into squads of 5 and used a simplified version of the mass melee rules from FH. I thought it worked out pretty well, so I thought I'd post my results here.
 
Rules:
 
Individuals (PCs and major NPCs) were represented by their own paper minis. Squads were represented by counters.
To simplify, all squads started out with 5 warriors. Each squad adds +4 to its starting BODY for unit size (see FH mass melee rules for further discussion) To simplify, I started all squads with 15 BODY (11 Base +4) just to make the breakpoints easier, but it would work with different BODY scores All other Characteristics were basically the same as the individuals' While we're using Hit Locations and sectional armor in this campaign, for squads we just treated all hits as being vs. Torso (9-11)  
Rather than increasing the damage that units do (as per FH), I represented that by giving squads Autofire attacks:
Attacks against other squads hit on 1-for-1 Attacks against individuals hit on 1-for-2, as normal  
Each squad has a Readiness Level: which is affected by both Casualties and Morale:
Full: +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 Morale, Autofire x5 Shaken: +0 OCV, +0 DCV, +0 Morale, Autofire x3 Disrupted: -1 OCV, -1 DCV, -1 Morale, No Autofire Routed/Destroyed: Unit is removed from play Most squads started as Full, but a few went in Shaken due to various reasons  
Casualties:
Squads start with   15  BODY Units that have lost   5  BODY cannot be above Shaken (+0) Units that have lost  10  BODY cannot be above Disrupted (-1)  
Morale Check:
Each squad has a Morale Roll, which is based on EGO with certain modifiers Squads must make a roll when a Unit takes damage > 1/3 its current (not starting) BODY, or when directed by GM. Failed Morale Check drops the Unit one Readiness Level.  
Rallying:
A successful Rally raises a Unit’s Readiness Level, but it cannot exceed that indicated by its Casualties. Units get a free Rally (Morale Roll) post-Phase 12, or may take it as a Full Phase action per Recovery rules. Individual Characters may make Oratory Rolls or PRE Attacks to give bonuses/penalties to Rally Rolls.  
For each unit type, I gave the players a 1/2 page character sheet, along with a 1/2 page rules reference.
 
I used  Alea disks to represent each squad because they're awesome and you can write on them with dry erase markers. Each PC got a color to represent the troops they were controlling to make it easier to keep track of them, and the enemy troops were similarly color-coded. Written on each disk were 3 things:
Unit type (mainly axes vs. sword & shield) Readiness Level Body damage taken, represented by hash marks  
I'll post some pics further down so you can see what it looked like. The beauty of this was that Body Damage and Readiness were the only characteristics that changed, so writing them on the disk eliminated the need to keep track of "Wait, how many body does this squad have left?" and so forth.
 
That's the basics. I'll post the scenario and how the battle went in follow-on posts, along with some pictures, and end with my thoughts and observations.

Here are the optional maneuvers:
 
Maneuver            Phase OCV DCV Effects
Multifire               1          -2     -2      Use multiple shots to increase the DCs of the Firearm, only with non-autofire weapon (for every "hit" as if it were an autofire                                                                 attack, add +1 DC)
Precise Autofire 1          var    ½      Gain bonuses to hit single target once with Autofire (for instance +1 to +5 if you have auotofire 5)
Rapid Fire            1          -2/x   ½     Shoot one or more targets multiple times (works like multiattack and rapid autofire)
Ricocheted Shot ½         var    +0    Use CSLs to “bounce” a shot to hit protected target
Snap Shot            1          -1      +0    Lets character duck back behind cover after shooting
Strafe                    ½        -v/6    -2     Make Ranged attack while moving
Suppression Fire  1        -2       +0 Continuous fire on area, only with autofire weapon
 
Consult pages 204-205 of the MHI Handbook for details

Regarding the inability to use Megamovement with a Full-Move Element Maneuver (Move By, Move Through, Passing Strike, etc). That restriction doesn't apply to Noncombat Movement as a whole. So you can legally perform a Passing Strike (or Move-By/Through) with Flight 10m x1000 Noncombat Movement (55 APs) (for a total velocity of 10km/phase...), however you do so at OCV 0 (unless you've got PSLs versus Noncombat Movement Penalties)... Of course such a character would need one looooong runway to Accelerate up to or Decelerate down from that velocity, or pay much more for faster deceleration. Heaven forbid something get in the way of your ac/deceleration by the way, because that would be a Collision (which uses the rules for Move-Through... which make for a very dead speedster)
 
However in practice I simply wouldn't allow this. The amount of damage such a construct that lay out (if done properly) is beyond the scope of any campaign I've ever run. I usually encourage Speedster's use just their Combat Velocity for Combat Maneuvers (for their own safety).

One of the best ways to handle this is to have them by a Speedster Style Martial Art which includes Martial Strike, Passing Strike, and Martial Dodge. Passing Strike functions as a Move-By that doesn't cause reciprocal damage; No speedster should be without Passing Strike (or some equivalent to it)..  Then simply purchase extra Martial DCs* if the character's Strength + Velocity isn't producing enough damage for your campaign.
*Alternatively you can also use a basic Hand-To-Hand Attack (or an Autofire Hand-To-Hand Attack) to represent the ridiculous velocity at which he can throw punches.
 
 

Perhaps there could be a huge festival like the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally or Burning Man, something that swells the town's population to a hundred times its usual size--maybe more.  Streets crowded with people looking for a good time, vendors selling anything and everything that can be sold, big-name entertainers and those looking to become a big break--and plenty of opportunities for crime, super and otherwise.  Pickpockets working the crowd.  Con artists looking to score with their latest scam.  Petty thieves making off with vendors' cashboxes.  Bank robbers hoping to hit it big while all that fresh cash is still in the bank vaults.  Arch-enemies holding the town for ransom, threatening to kill everyone unless the hero comes so they can settle the score once and for all.  Mad inventors looking to test their new mass mind control weapon. 
 
Those are a few of the possibilities.  Hope that helps.

Regarding the inability to use Megamovement with a Full-Move Element Maneuver (Move By, Move Through, Passing Strike, etc). That restriction doesn't apply to Noncombat Movement as a whole. So you can legally perform a Passing Strike (or Move-By/Through) with Flight 10m x1000 Noncombat Movement (55 APs) (for a total velocity of 10km/phase...), however you do so at OCV 0 (unless you've got PSLs versus Noncombat Movement Penalties)... Of course such a character would need one looooong runway to Accelerate up to or Decelerate down from that velocity, or pay much more for faster deceleration. Heaven forbid something get in the way of your ac/deceleration by the way, because that would be a Collision (which uses the rules for Move-Through... which make for a very dead speedster)
 
However in practice I simply wouldn't allow this. The amount of damage such a construct that lay out (if done properly) is beyond the scope of any campaign I've ever run. I usually encourage Speedster's use just their Combat Velocity for Combat Maneuvers (for their own safety).

One of the best ways to handle this is to have them by a Speedster Style Martial Art which includes Martial Strike, Passing Strike, and Martial Dodge. Passing Strike functions as a Move-By that doesn't cause reciprocal damage; No speedster should be without Passing Strike (or some equivalent to it)..  Then simply purchase extra Martial DCs* if the character's Strength + Velocity isn't producing enough damage for your campaign.
*Alternatively you can also use a basic Hand-To-Hand Attack (or an Autofire Hand-To-Hand Attack) to represent the ridiculous velocity at which he can throw punches.
 
 

For myself, anyone trying a move-through for a huge amount of damage would be limited to DEF + Body (or BODY x2 for complete obliteration). Sooo, Mr Superspeed, your 20 PD and 10 BODY allows you a maximum of 40d6, although you're probably going to need a new character.

Regarding the inability to use Megamovement with a Full-Move Element Maneuver (Move By, Move Through, Passing Strike, etc). That restriction doesn't apply to Noncombat Movement as a whole. So you can legally perform a Passing Strike (or Move-By/Through) with Flight 10m x1000 Noncombat Movement (55 APs) (for a total velocity of 10km/phase...), however you do so at OCV 0 (unless you've got PSLs versus Noncombat Movement Penalties)... Of course such a character would need one looooong runway to Accelerate up to or Decelerate down from that velocity, or pay much more for faster deceleration. Heaven forbid something get in the way of your ac/deceleration by the way, because that would be a Collision (which uses the rules for Move-Through... which make for a very dead speedster)
 
However in practice I simply wouldn't allow this. The amount of damage such a construct that lay out (if done properly) is beyond the scope of any campaign I've ever run. I usually encourage Speedster's use just their Combat Velocity for Combat Maneuvers (for their own safety).

One of the best ways to handle this is to have them by a Speedster Style Martial Art which includes Martial Strike, Passing Strike, and Martial Dodge. Passing Strike functions as a Move-By that doesn't cause reciprocal damage; No speedster should be without Passing Strike (or some equivalent to it)..  Then simply purchase extra Martial DCs* if the character's Strength + Velocity isn't producing enough damage for your campaign.
*Alternatively you can also use a basic Hand-To-Hand Attack (or an Autofire Hand-To-Hand Attack) to represent the ridiculous velocity at which he can throw punches.
 
 

Inherent isn't an absolute effect, there are exceptions. For example; you can still take away an Inherent Power by subjecting the target to a Transform. In that regard it is no different than NND Attacks or Desolidification which are similarly absolute except when they suddenly aren't.
 
Inherent is a useful element of the toolkit because of the way Adjustment Powers were written, and how they can be used in a VPP. How you use Inherent should depend entirely on how you allow Adjustment Powers to be used in your campaign. While it is possible to manage the creation of adjustment powers to prevent it from being necessary (such as never allowing Drain Life Support or Dispel Extra Limbs); I think it is nice that the system provides a tool to deal with the logical inconsistencies created by some Adjustment Powers. For one thing, it is nice because it means that a GM doesn't have to future-proof every single adjustment power you allow against the possibility that it can affect a power it shouldn't. Or worse, give out arbitrary immunity to a character's powers for free, based solely on a personal interpretation of a given special effect...
 
One example of where I would use Inherent is to differentiate mechanically between the forms of Desolidification bought by a Necromancer that can become a Ghost, and an actual Ghost. In most campaigns, the former could be forced to turn off their Spell and become solid, but generally speaking the latter cannot be. On the other hand, if my campaign featured sufficiently common methods of making a ghost temporarily solid (for example; a spell that brought them "into phase with our reality" or some such) so that normal weapons could damage their ectoplasmic forms for a brief time, then building those methods using Adjustment Powers makes sense, and using Inherent on the Ghost's desolidification doesn't; because even though it is truly an inherent element of their nature, in that campaign it is an element that can be Adjusted, just like their inherent Strength and Running.

Also another criteria for me is, how much mileage am I going to get out of this hassle? I have limited play time so if I use rare optional rules or house rules, I’d it worth it? Nothing against some of the rules/builds people design. If they enjoy it great! 

Just reading this argument over, as I inadvertently started it, I like it because it is exposing some of the hidden assumptions about the game.
1) That there is some universal, perfect way to build a character from a set of common mechanical denominators... which there isn't, no matter how reductive you make the mechanics, even though it is heavily implied by the design.
2) That builds can be divorced from SFX and still be meaningful/coherent in actual play... which is never the case if you are actually role playing, and not just doing abstract calculations.
3) That building a character is separate from the game you are playing in, and that there is some kind of generic way the characters are portable to every other Hero game.  Simply not the case.
4) That Limitations are rules for helping to "define" a specific power, rather than what they are, desired methods/situations in which a numerated power is reduced or made ineffective IN GAME PLAY, and the player WANTS IT THAT WAY! (A whole different thread)
5) That game play can somehow be purely mechanical and not exist on a rule and judgment level, where "what makes sense and feels right" is decided in a shared imaginary moment between players, not on paper, in numbers or programmed code.
 
Hero has always been a war between two games... the game of building a character, vs. the game of actually role playing the character in a group, with a story, a shared world, etc. There are many things that can be mechanically pure and consistent in the former (adjustment powers mechanically affecting other powers) that can completely break the latter ("What? That makes no sense?!")? Hero has spent so many years and words and pages on the former, but very little on the latter... so it makes sense that people think of it this way.
 
I know there are people who love just messing around with the rules and seeing what kind of builds they can come up with that are "legal" and cram the most in for the least. I also know that just because it can be done by the rules, doesn't mean it makes it anywhere near a table or actual play. The mechanics will surely affect the play experience, but people seem to balk at it going the other way around, that actual play should affect how mechanics are interpreted and used. Hero is still stuck in these horrible arguments because it was built before game designers understood that rule and mechanics are judged by the resulting game play they help manifest. Game play is the goal of the game creation. Hero is still in the old school model of mechanics first, with the expected game play nebulously defined at best. It tried, pretty well for its time, to have aspects of mechanics built to reflect a certain outcome... the idea of nine panel pages and actions that reflected it... and the idea that the mechanics at the time were specifically written to reflect a Bronze Age style of comic book fighting... but it was limited, and still had too many war game aspects, and the more genericized the system became, the more it lost touch with its resulting game play.
 
If you are going to build a house, do you...
1) Look at the tools and materials you have, and build whatever kind of house they allow for?
2) Design a house, then get the tools and materials that will best help you make that house a reality?
 
Too many Hero arguments exist with the former mindset, instead of the latter... which is where it really gets dicey. Hence why I used the word "interpret" in the title of this thread. The only way you get the house you want (the role playing experience) is to allow for interpretation, not just "This is what the rules say."

I'd expect Desolidification to allow the person to get out of bonds, unless said bonds have Affects Desolidified.
 
Similarly, Teleportation could allow escape from bonds unless said bonds have Cannot be Escaped with Teleportation.

Yes, and I disagree with said suggestions almost every time they are leveled in a thread in which I am participating in. I believe that hiding your work just makes it harder for new players to learn the rules. I much prefer to provide reasonably detailed descriptions to accompany pregenerated Game Elements. 

Is the obsession with Change Environment due to its name?  Folks used to have similar issue with the Force Field and Force Wall powers until 6e changed their names to Resistant Defense and Barrier. While HERO's power names have always been pretty good placeholders for finding power descriptions, the names themselves shoud never take the place of the actual description or mechanics. Assigning a sfx based mechanic based on a placeholder's implied sfx is counter to how HERO was designed.

here are some examples of official builds in the Equipment Guide. You need to use either Usable As Attack or Mobile Perception Point to have your Foci work from a distance. Examples below (only including relevant descriptions): 
 
Tracking Bug (but could be swapped out for a Light spell):
 
Images to Radio Group, +4
to PER Rolls, Area Of Effect (64m Radius; +1¼),
Usable As Attack (allows character to “stick” the
Image to a target; +1¼), (76 Active Points); IAF (-½)
 
In this case the Foci (bug) doesn't need Mobile, it moves with the target it is "stuck" too. 
 
Ultraviolet Tracking Spray (but could be swapped out for a Light spell or glow (and in this case the Foci is the spray can)):
 
Images to Ultraviolet Perception,
+4 to PER Rolls, Usable As Attack (allows
character to “stick” the Image to a target; +1¼),
Continuing Charge lasting 1 Week (stops functioning
if target washes himself and his clothes
thoroughly; +½) (60 Active Points); OAF
 
Or Wireless Bug (undercover cop option):
 
OAF (-1), No Range (character
must place bug at perception point before he can
use the power; -½) with "it transmits voices and noises in the
wearer’s vicinity to a nearby receiver. To the
Standard Audio Bug, add Mobile Perception Point."
 
Which shows that even if you place or give the foci to anyone else, you need to add the Mobile Perception point to the focus to have it keep working. 
 
And to get back to more on topic, here is the Create Light (and give to someone else) spell in the 6th Edition spell book:
 
Sight Group Images, +2 to PER Rolls, Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +¼),
Usable As Attack (to “stick” light to defined object; +1¼), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½),
Persistent (+¼) (52 Active Points); OAF (a wand of ivory; -1), Concentration (½ DCV throughout
casting; -½), Extra Time (5 Minutes to cast; -1), Gestures (throughout casting; -½), Incantations
(throughout casting; -½), Only To Attach Light To A Specified Nonliving Object (see text; -½), Only
To Create Light (-1), Requires A Magic Roll (-½), Time Limit (duration of 1 Month; -¼). Total cost:
8 points.
 
In this instance the "Specified non-living object" is not a foci for some reason, but it also doesn't need Mobile or any other similar limitation. Once it is UAA it is considered to be mobile for "free" going where the non-living object it is attached to goes, no matter who is using it. 
 

I am pleased to announce the launch of the HERO System Mobile app on both the Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store.  You can install the app by searching for it in your app store or by using the links provided.  The app is free to use, ad free, and respects your privacy.
 
Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.herogmtools App Store - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hero-system-mobile/id1352750917?ls=1&mt=8 Amazon App Store - http://a.co/byom955  
This project is an extension of an export template I wrote a few months ago.  I had so much fun writing that template that I decided to develop a full app.
 
Features
Import characters from Hero Designer using this export template Characteristics and Skills may be long pressed and a check will be made Dice rolling tools (3d6, Hit, Damage, and Free Form)  The H.E.R.O. tool generates random 250 point 5e supers (shout out to Cassandra for allowing me to use her original idea) Track statistics about your die rolls, including average values, distribution, total stun etc.  
This is still very much a work in progress and I have plans to add more features as time goes on.  For now though I feel that it’s mature enough to release to the general public.
 
Feedback is always welcome either here or at phil.guinchard@gmail.com
 
Happy Hero-ing

While its true Light goes on any given object, and therefore it could technically be represented with a Focus of Opportunity. The Spell normally allows you to force objects to shine, including objects carried/owned/bought by your enemies, and that strikes me as being outside the bounds of what Foci of Opportunity were intended to be used for. Foci of Opportunity are generally intended to be Personal, because it typically represents an ability to use a mundane object in an unintended/impossible way. Besides that, aren't there clarifications in the 6th edition core rulebooks specifically discouraging the use of the Universal Foci rules to gain the benefits of Usable By Others (and by proxy Usable As Attack) without paying for it on powers intended to be used on others?
 
CC/FHC doesn't actually say anything of the sort... but I know I've read such somewhere. Regardless it seems a highly abusive to expect to gain the benefits of a +1 1/2 Advantage from taking a -1/2 limitation.
 
Also that brings up the point that my previous build can be used on People, not just objects. Since pretty much every enemy is going to have some object or another which can be targeted, Only On Objects is likely only a -1/2 Limitation. If you apply Only On Objects to Light​; change cost to 26 points, or 19 points with casting limitations.