Duke Bushido

He doesn't get that, either.

Complete isnt a bad suggestion. If you are already familiar with HERO / Champions, I like HERO System Basic for a tightly-condensed presentation of the new rules.

Ooh! Good question! Obviously there is no correct answer, as it is an opinion poll, but I will offer you my own opinions, briefly: Was it a mistake? No. Do I like it? Also no. I see the validity of it: there are more options and powers and skills-- there are more things you can spend points on than ever before. Some of them are pretty pricey: Desolidification was once a movement power, bought in increments to a point you felt was appropriate for your character. Now its 40 points, period. I will spare a long discussion of all the little xhanges and how they add up and skip to why I don't think it was a bad idea. The end goal of any company is growth, and at a bare minimum, long-term survival. The goal of gamers is more gamers: more players, more GMs, more opportunities for games, discussion, friends, etc. Both of these require new customers for the company. Champions /HERO has a bottomless complexity, _once you really learn the system_. Experienced pkayers know how to design the "just right thing," using various modifiers to control costs and create specific game effcts relatively inexpensively by focusing on the individual aspects they want (and negotiation skills with the GM). "Shrinking: only to reduce mass" is a build I remember approving years ago, but I no longer remember the particulars. There was a simialr thing with density increase for the same character, but it doesn't matter for this conversation. Anyway, this fine tuning- the skills and know-how to get exactly what you want and increase your cost-efficiency come with practice, and nothing but practice. Upping the points makes it easier for new players to build the character they see in their heads: he can fly, so I will buy flight. He shouts beams of solar radiation, so I will buy Blast. No modifiers, no fractions, no multipowers and VPPs-- no complications at all. Thus, I dont think its a bad idea. I dobt like it because it lets us old hands really, really ramp up the power level, and in a hurry. however, I can let it slide simpky because eveeyone has to learn, and there really ia a lot more to spend points on these days. I would have preferred to have seen a talk covering the value of higher piints for new players or simpler builds, and regulating points up or down in later campaigns as pkayers gained experience, but likely that would have added more words, so I am quite content to keep my disappointment personal, and not find fault with the book(s).

My friend doesn't get this. What's the best way to explain it to him?

I have been trying to secure a copy for years now, with absolutely no luck. If you are luckier than I was, I salute you.

Sorry. N-B; I failed to transfer the context. Please, let me fill that in: That was what I found following a link that had been posted on support of the claim that the word "Haymker" was being used in a much broader sense than just... Well. If you will forgive the usage, a much broader sense than just q haymaker. as an amateur etymologist, I was quite curious to see thos shift in the language, so I follwed the link. I posted the entirety of what I found and, in fairness to the person making the claim, i made good effort to check a few other sources looking for support to the claim. That is all. I completely understand that any word or phrase can be assigned a context-specific definition that has bugger-all to do with its actual meaning: this is where things like "it's on the house" and "purple-flavored' come from. (On a related note, it is this tendency that evntually wrecks a word into uselessness,or completely changes the definition. My favorite example is "moot." Did you know that "a moot point" once meant the single most important or most relevant point made or part of a comment? Dis you know that it still does? Do you know what wrecked it? Sarcasm. Sarcastic over-use of the word moot destroyed the qbility to use it in a meaningful, commonly-understood way. There is _nothing_ good about sarcasm; it stands in the way of communication, of understanding, and of being remotely decent to one another, all these and more are reasons I go to great pains to eliminate it from my life. Okay, parenthetical digression over) I was not bolstering any support that game-wise, haymaker means x. I was looking for the offered support for the claim that haymaker no longer meant haymaker. Sorry about the confusion.

I wanted to comment on this last night, but didn't have the time to make sure my assumptions were correct, so I put it off until tonight, and find that I still don't have the time to really pull an in-depth math-up of Summon, but I would like to mention-- if anyone is thinking of the whole "summon Illusionary creature" I tossed out, that the 90 PRE, bought for the summoned McGuffin, tacks on a mere 18 points. Same exact effect-- 90 PRE-- for less than a third of the 60 pts of Images. Sure-- you may have to buy a few other things [NOTE: what I wanted to check was where 6e stands on negative characteristics and 0 charactereristics, as an illusionary creature-- living entirely in my head, ordinarily, would have lots of Zero stats]. I have little doubt that by whatever time tomorrow I am able to check the board, Hugh or someone else quick with numbers and familiar with the rules will have explained why this isn't possible, so I am going to return to the sidelines. Good night, folks.

No idea about the history of the Justice League. Astro City _was_ different, but even then, it read like a particularly up-beat Doc Savage serial from the old magazine. (I quite liked those, actually: the uncle I named my son after had his entire childhood collection over the barn; I burned through them when I was a kid).

Right. Because at that time, Marvel was publishing a comic called "Champions."

I am not disagreeing with this, but I am seeking a value comparison. I am still at work and so I don't have access to my 6e books, i am afraid. What is the CV penalty for a called shot to the head, which results in- unless this has changed for 6e- double damage (after defenses)? The question, assuming that penalty is 5 or less, is "what would make Haymaker the better option here?"

No; yesterday was cake day. I turned 61.

And _that_ is very superhero-y.

Anything featuring the original characters (presumably, we'll still be missing Gargoyle.... ) is an absolute win, Sir.

While we aren't usually polar opposites, we disagree enough that it's always interesting to note where we agree. Ah! Thanks, Hugh. I had forgotten that change in the newer editions (should any lurkers come along wondering how: I still play the old stuff, and like with anyone else, what's most familiar comes most readily to mind. My mistake; my apologies. So I took a moment to brush up on 6e Images, and frankly, it's even more effective: anyone blowing a perception roll believes the image to be real, period. For a mere three points, the wielder can buy a -1 to that perception roll. Super-senses aren't really covered in-depth (can a person without IR vision create an image that fools IR vision, for example). Batman types would be harder to fool, but typical bricks are going spend a lot of time attacking a decoy. No real complaints there: if you buy a power, it should be good for something, after all. There isn't much discussion of PER related to Images, but we may be able to infer from the statement that "a warrior, monster, policeman, or something else that should have a DCV, its DCV is whatever the character creating it wants it to have, subject to GM's permission." [and the obligatory "emphasis added" here, followed by your obligatory "well, duh!s" here. ) There is a much shorter statement that suggests too high a CV may even be a tip-off to the targets that "something isn't right" and allow them a bonus to their PER rolls. _Personally_-- as in, there is nothing in the sacred texts to support this-- I would apply a casting penalty or sorts, or require the caster to lower his own DCV if he is attempting to assign his image a CV higher than his own: it can't be easy to react faster than you are able to react; that smacks of intense concentration. Again, just a personal thought, but it might be something I would consider applying should the caster (pardon the use of the term; it's just easier to type than "the guy who is using Images against his target(s)") should he wish to give his illusion an ferocity that he himself does not posses-- maybe require an Acting roll or something like that to ensure that he does nothing to blow the illusion: Godzilla skipping along the street; Superman giving someone the finger; Batman smiling-- that sort of thing. However, I have not given that any thought at all; it's just a knee-jerk suggestion to allow a player and a GM to come to terms with a quibble. For that matter, the caster's familiarity with the subject of his illusion may come into play; he may attempt to-- using the PER example-- give a creature a ferocity that it is not generally known to posses, creating a confusion that might add a point or two to opposing PER rolls. Just a couple of thoughts. And, as Lonewolf has already noted, there are existing PER modifiers such as display of power, violent action, etc that can be brought to bear to boost a Presence Attack. At any rate, I have confessed to not using the rules set in question, and am going to bow out at this point. You folks have a nice discussion.

I have recieved many recommendations, and have read a few. The thing I was politely trying very hard not to say is that none of these things are as brilliant as the fans think they are.,,from outside the fandom, most of them are derivative of the last thing that was recommended to you, highly repetitive thematically (every Batman /Joker story recommended to me can be boiked down to "Joker goes edgelord again, and this time we drew the gore. Again), and none of them are especially memorable. This may have been different back in "the day," for whatever your day might have been, but from the outside, comic books read like fanfiction of comic books. Again: I intend absolutely no malice. I simply want to put it out there that the view from inside might not be the most unbiased view.

And therefore superior and more interesting in every possible way. (I can let myself out; thanks)

As someone completely outside comic book fandom who gets semi-regular exposure to comic book fans (about a third of my players are comic book fans, and they leave comics around regularly, particularly when it's something "you just _must_ read"), I am going to state with honesty and without malice that there are no comic book authors to which these statements do not apply.

I am always game to learn something; I happily followed the link. Forgive the uglinwss that comes from working with a phone, but i am at work, and thia ia what ihave available. I found this: haymaker noun Save Word To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In hay·mak·er | \ ˈhā-ˌmā-kər \ Definition of haymaker : a powerful blow ............... Before going further, let us see what a 'blow' is: I will spare you thw xouoke of dozen definitions (most of which relate to the movement of free air or gasses) and provide this link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blow Interestingly,enough, a physical strike against a target is never actually mentioned. Failure, losing a contest, and electrical overload are mentioned, bur hitting soemthing isnt. Wired, but kind of amusing. Getting back to MW's haymaker definition, it continues on thusly: Synonyms for haymaker Synonyms bang, bash, bat, beat, belt, biff, blow, bop, box, buffet, bust, chop, clap, clip, clout, crack, cuff, dab, douse [British], fillip, hack, hit, hook, knock, larrup [dialect], lash, lick, pelt, pick, plump, poke, pound, punch, rap, slam, slap, slug, smack, smash, sock, spank, stinger, stripe, stroke, swat, swipe, switch, thud, thump, thwack, wallop, welt, whack, wham, whop (also whap) ....................... All of these, given a quick glance, are synonymous with striking someone or something. Going down the page: Examples of haymaker in a Sentence He was knocked down by a haymaker to his jaw. dealt his opponent a haymaker that sent him reeling across the boxing ring Recent Examples on the WebThe first punch, a haymaker to our collective jaw, came when COVID-19 pulled the plug on the NCAA Tournament and sidelined the stirring national title dreams of the 30-2 Aztecs basketball team.— San Diego Union-Tribune, "Column: Amid the pain, 2020 reminded us that sports matter," 27 Dec. 2020The Colts defensive line is supposed to throw that kind of punch, even if injury has taken away its haymaker.— Joel A. Erickson, The Indianapolis Star, "Insider: Titans pounding shows Colts defensive line isn't as deep as it needs to be yet," 29 Nov. 2020 These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'haymaker.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback. See More First Known Use of haymaker 1902, in the meaning defined above ........................ I tried hitting the "learn more about haymaker" button, but there's nothing there. The button is dead. Still ibwas curious, so I went elsewhere to dind aome,other use of haymaker. I ended up here: https://www.yourdictionary.com/haymaker Not the most serious-looking dictionary, but it was a dctionay. The definitions offered were these: Haymaker meaning hā'mā'kər Filters A powerful blow with the fist. noun 1 0 A powerful blow with or swing of the fist, intended to cause a knockout. noun 1 0 A person who cuts hay and spreads it out to dry. noun 0 0 (agriculture) A person or machine which harvests or prepares tall grass for use as animal fodder. noun 0 0 (informal, fisticuffs) A particularly powerful punch, especially one which knocks down an opponent, thrown like a scythe chop for cutting hay, as agricultural haymakers used to have strong arms ............... Again, I ask for forgiveness for the ugliness; I havent screwed with the settings; it seems,to be a resukt of copy-paste. I took screenshots, but I have nowhere to host them to post them, so that was a waste, ultimately. I tried a few etymology links (because I freakin' _love_ etymology! If I could have found a way to make a living doing etymology, I would spent my life in my dream job!), and learned a lot about how the word came to be, etc, but ultimately, even across multiple online dictionaries (I will have to drag out the Oxfird when I get home. I'm not knocking Miriam Webster, but for me, the Oxford dictionary is my dictionary of choice)-so far as to even go to the ghastly resource that is Urban Dictionary, and I can find definitions in two distinct categories: either the actual making of real hay, or a good I'm barnyard swing: a particulalry powerful punch delivered from the shoulder with a minimum of elbow contraction, named for the similarity of motion used in threshing hay. I cant find any suggestions of it being used for anything else, and I am activw2lt looking for just that thing.

The short version is because a haymaker is specifically a type of punch. Not just in game, but the real-world bastard swing from which the maneuver draws its name. The early editions even ackowldeged this. It was never specified as a consulation prize, but it always felt like "here is something for your brick, since he has no ranged attacks." I had never heard of the idea of "haymakering" an energy blast until Red October and 4e, where the idea was being bandied around a lot. I never thought it would gain a lot of traction so I ignored most of that chatter (primarily I just lurked and a-mailed anyway). I was secretly pleased not at the idea of haymakering an energy blast, but that the general apparent lack of knowing what haymaker actually meant suggested an over-all drop culturally in real violence. I hadnt considered the prick in gun or gang violence, so I guess even that joy was misplaced. at any rate, I still don't allow it for more than hand-to-hand and some melee attacks. I may change my mind when 7th edition includes rules for bouncing punches and spreading cudgels.

You even have to define what PRE actually _is_, not just in terms,of the mechanics with which it is used, but is it something that is tied to the shape? If an artist sculpted and painted one, is it automatically as "presencey" as the original thing? Hiw much of its presence is derived from its basic appearance, how much from its mannerisms, hiw much from just "what is known" about the thing? Can your shapeshifter incorporate the right movements, sounds, reactions, actions, etc? How much of the pre involves those things? To use the over-used but relevant example of Batman, is he scary solely because he looks like Batman? Or is there more to it than that? On the other sise of the coin, if the PC buys enough dice of images to create a perfect image so flawless as to score a x4 or x5, what is he getting? We have recently run through a thread about how exp3nsive that can be. If he decides to forego the potential 16 dice of damage he could have bought as a blast to instead be extremly effective with images, what return is he getting if, when he gets high enough success, his effectiveness is hampered because we arent willing to let him kow someone without additional builds and expense? If he needs a x4 to startle someone into a brief retreat, he gets nothing for x1, x2, or times 3. Declaring that he needs additional expenditures to get the value of his x4 may not be just, and may instaed encourage him to just buy another fireball and kill it.

This slippery slope is the ugly side of HERO: the compulsion to map everything to a number because it can be mapped to a number. Look closely at the mechanic for illusions, though: there are allowances for size, sound, movement, and- most importantly- how completely the target believes the illusion to be real. There are no allowances for mapping the Characteristics or abilities of the illusion. This makes sense, as the effect the illusion has is tied to the target's belief in its reality. The more he believes it, the more impressive it is, at least to him. If it is meant to be inspirational, the more real it is, the more inspiring it will be. If it is meant to be scary, EGOx5 makes it soul-shreddingly terrifying. The mechanic for it is, perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not, left enitirely to GM interpretation, with nods to psych limitations, level of success, complexity, repeated exposure to the same thing (via Peesence rules), etc. There is also leeway for making the illusion different, more or less tailored to the target, etc. Statting it out will mean these things are If you insist that something be statted out, there is an entirely different mechanic for that: summon a fully-statted illusory creature. It will be an illusion, and the exact same thing, every time, with whatever unchanging characteristics are assigned to it.

Serious question from a guy who knows jack-diddly about comic books: What are these ages? Other Than oeriods of actual history, what sets one apart from another? What is the difference?

I admit that I have likely made an assumption somewhere, as I don't see it spelled out anywhere but on the map, but 1e says this: 2e says that same thing, and adds a bit more: 25mm is the accepted approximation of one actual inch: an inch is actually 25.4 mm; dropping 2/5 of a mm is reasonable enough to keep things clear, I think. Now all the early editions have similar examples of how movement, Turn Mode, etc, work, and it's telling that all those examples from 1e to 3e show the movement as passing from "flat side to flat side" of the 1" hex, but still, that could just be for clarity. Most of the Red October stuff drew from 4e, and I am going to assume that the original hex questions originated there as well, so I'm not going to wake up enough to search that, since it apparently doesn't have an answer. If I find that I remember the question when I am more alert, I may look into 4e as well. The definitive nail in the coffin of this question, though, comes from 5e. It's probably somewhere in that massive book, too, but what springs to mind is the Hero System Resource Kit, which features a cut-and-tape "range template" you can lay on your 1" hex map to determine just how far away something is, regardless of angle (yes; most of us use tape measures or something of equal ubiquity and simplicity, but those things can't actually address the question at hand. This range template, however, _can_ address it, as each hex it labeled (from 1" to 25"). If you open the resource kit (or use your template, if you happened to have cut it out and pasted it together), and lay a measuring device across it, those hexes are exactly 1" across the opposing flat sides (must as was the old Roses map packed in with 2e, 3e boxed, and lightly revised for this same resource kit). So ultimately in terms of "how far do I move" and "how far can I shoot / does the cloud spread," I think it's safe to say this depends entirely on which measurement across the hexes yields a 1" measurement per hex. As far as area goes, though, it would seem that the system has always defaulted to 1" across opposing sides as opposed to vertices, even before the original question was actually asked. Still, it was interesting to see the math figuring area both ways.

I probably shouldn't even attempt this: I was going to bed when I thought "I'll check in here and ...." At any rate, I hearken back to a line from one of the earliest rules editions- it's from 1 or 2 e; may even be in both of them. I'm not clear-headed at the moment--- At any rate, there is a specific comment that a power with an advantage or a limitation is not "this power plus X" or "that power minus Y," but a whole new, unique power. Applying that to adders- and specifically summon multiple creatures-- I am going to run with it, suggesting that your power is _not_ "summon a thing," and I can do it twice!," but is in fact "summon up to two things at once." I mean, you can already use it twice, or three times, or as many times as you have Phases and suitable END. Your power is unique because you can summon up to 2 each time, and this _singular, unique power_ costs 105 pts, so that when you use it to summon two things, you are paying the END for a 105-pt power, and are getting two things. Similarly, when you summon 1 thing, I would suggest (though your GM may disagree) that you are still paying END for a 105pt power.