薔薇語

I went looking through the Master List of Disadvantages now called Complications (see link below)
http://www.cellularsmoke.net/rpgs/masterlistdisads.php
 
I didn't see anything that stood out as a particularly good Psych lim but you may...
 
You could have the Accidental Change happen off camera; where you have the character wake up really tired the next day, as though he hadn't slept.  And the AC was something that happened over the last few hours.  A mystery for the team to unravel!
 
 

might want to go with enraged/berserk with a high ego roll so he's not turning his enemies into flattened gummy bears every time he goes into combat.  
CES

So many have already pointed out some of the extreme troubles with Imperial Japan, as it actually was in the 30s and 40s taking over the US in a realistic fashion. Be it the fact they'd be trying to do two extreme land wars in both mainland China and then the US plus need to maintain unquestioned trade dominance in the Pacific, there is no way for them to execute such a goal. Even their early war aims against the US were more retaliation for US embargoes and a desire to merely push out the US from the Pacific by displaying enough early force to cripple US expeditions into the South-East Asian parts of the Pacific wherein they could restock, regroup, and push out at far more unpredictable locations. A US force lacking Midway and Hawaii would find themselves trying to enter the Pacific theater through only a handful of very well guarded routes. 

Beyond all of that, one has to contend with the fact that the Imperial State was barely holding itself together even while all they were doing was winning in Korea and Manchuria. Countless officers attempted to kill high ranking politicians and even the Prime Minister. The top generals had essentially no direct control over their cores in the outer provinces. Politicians were scared into subservience by threats of violence, public sympathies that were extra strong when they were doing well, and the classic issue of looking one's constituency into the eyes as you tell them you will abandon all the lands their sons and brothers died to secure. Even the Emperor was only nominally in control in a very classically Japanese manner. The system was destined to break in that form regardless of their successes. In the real world there is no set of foreseable outcomes where Imperial Japan continues in any form we'd recognize for much longer than it already did. 

So, if we accept that perhaps the path of Japan from post WW1 was more or less fixed even if we change the details, why not completely change the past? There was, even still post Pearl Harbor, and idea popular with some politicians to create a Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia wherein Japan essentially unites the Asian populous behind a single banner. Let's say that there were a number of True Believers in this in the ranks of Japanese and non-Communite Chinese. These Japanese Metas were moved by the plights of the Colonized Asians and move to protect the politicians of this ilk. Perhaps these same Metas were on the front lines with some of the early Korean and Manchurian successes and thus hold a great deal of respect in the public's imagination. Likewise, the various army purges of these separatists were a decade earlier and far more successful. 

Now what we have done is set up the groundwork for a true world power alliance in Asia. The Japanese are still spooked by the downfall of Tsarist Russian and fear the spread of international communism. They move to work WITH Chiang Kai Shek to subdue the communists in the Chinese region and help arm separatist movements in India and IndoChina. These two powers will be able to create manageable puppet states in current Bangladesh, unite with Siam, and carve out Indo-China for the Chinese and Thais while claiming the southern tip of Malaysia and the islands for Japan. Japan, being a leader in Military Strategy, Technology, and a strong manufacturing base would be able to assume a more managerial role, ala Great Briton in India / Asia, A war in which the larger Asian continent is consolidated, unified, or otherwise paralyzed wouldn't be as concerned with US embargoes. 

Without Pearl Harbor, the US is far less likely to enter any war. Without the manpower of India, crippled trade routes from Asia (no rubber, steal, tungsten, etc), Great Briton would find it much harder to hold on. Perhaps we even concede that some of the One Punch KOs against Russia landed with more effect as Russia tries to secure its Chinese/Manchurian boarder allows Nazi Germany to work against the UK more directly. Maybe the UK falls, maybe it doesn't. But certainly they are broken in manpower, resources, and spirit enough to sign an uneasy peace. The US, which has been relying on War manufacturing and Ally Bonds gets involved too late to save the War for the Allies. The Anti-FDR movements and communist movements takes hold in the US and it fractures into a new civil war. Germans, Italians, Japanese, and Mexican forces all rush to pick a side and create a new puppet. The Japanese, unlike all the others actually have experience in effective puppet management and are able to gain strong East Coast ties using the rockies and deserts as a natural wall. Now you have an American region with all its fractured culture under the influence of Japan without the direct control. To get an idea for how this might actually look in practice, read up on how Both Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan  or even Okinawa were administered. While colonization is never a pretty thing, there was usually a lot of support for Japanese management; things ran on time, Japanese schools were high class (many subjugated folks tried to send their kids to the Japanese system schools because of the prestige). 

If you want to have a post-war cultural revolution akin to the US, it could be in a similar form wherein the new generation actually embraces in a non-cynical manner the nations of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and push the military and politicians to more fully adhere ot its non-colonial ideals (i.e., stop training soldiers how to kill by using live Chinese prisoners, etc). 

Those are, of course, just my thoughts. 

La Rose. 

Be my guest.  That's what it's there for.

Nice thread. Gonna be stealing and tweaking some of these for a oneshot I will be running soon. Especially since one said he wants a Black Panther character. 
 
La Rose. 

Well, since your thread title specifically invites me, I’ll chime in.  However, at the risk of disappointing, I kind of like this concept as a game-simplifier, and as a Supers game mechanic.
To start, I think a lot depends on how other current rules for Pushing apply.  By RAW, Pushing is not something you can just choose tactically.  “Oh, it’s Firewing – OK, everyone Push to the max in the opening segment 12 volley so we can put him down quick.”
 
Consider a 4 player group, each with 12d6 attacks (selected because that’s a pretty standard Supers norm).  What will a well-defended opponent have?  Typical defenses are 20 – 25.  Give our MegaVillain 35, and normal attacks plink about 7 STUN per hit past his defenses.  If we go much higher, standard attacks become useful, which I assume is not the intent. But if everyone pushes to 18 DC in Segment 12, Firewing gets hit by a couple of attacks (and I find a 50% chance to hit pretty conservative – 3 hits seems more likely, and 4 are not out of the question) which each punch through 28 STUN.  That’s 56, 84 or 112 STUN past defenses, depending on how many hit.  I doubt Firewing will take BOD – exceeding even 25 BOD on 18 dice is pretty unlikely – but being Stunned or KOd gets a lot more likely.  And if the first hero Stuns him, the other three are pretty much guaranteed to hit.
 
If I spent an extra 6 points for +30 END, I take no effective penalty for the first Pushed attack, since my END drops from 90 to 60, I can keep going at full power afterwards.  Invest 60 points in extra END (some of which, perhaps, you offset with lower REC, since you no longer need to recover END for any reason other than Pushing) and your 5 SPD character can Push for an extra 6 DC every phase for two turns.  It becomes easy to make Pushing the norm, rather than the dramatic choice you are looking for.  Of course, capping END at 5x the campaign DC max would avoid this issue, and higher caps would at least mitigate it. 
If Pushing is only allowed for heroic actions (RAW), and not just “I want to win/get solid damage in”, then this issue is mitigated considerably.  But if it’s free as long as you accept the END cost, not so much.  I get the sense you want Pushing to be a tactical choice without the RAW “only for really heroic actions” rule.
 
The other limiting factor for Pushing has always been the EGO roll.  You don’t mention that above.  If the maximum Push follows RAW (10 AP + 1 AP per point the roll is made by), you will not get the dramatic Pushes you are looking for.  However, if it were, say, 10 AP + 5 per point the roll is made by (i.e. 1 Damage Class per point), this seems like it might work better, making the Ego roll also a limiting factor.  A character with a 14- Ego roll would be able to add 5 DC (not a lot different than the 6 added above) on an average roll.
 
Tack on “you spend the END for the amount you try to Push” and this becomes a bigger tactical gamble.  I try to Push for the full 30 AP, make, say, just the base Ego roll, get an extra 2 DCs but lose 30 END.
 
MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
 
Should the END limit (and Push costs) limit AP or DCs?  I’m inclined to go with DCs rather than AP, except that this makes the END limit below harder to balance. 
 
Should the END limit be based on only the attack, or factor in other powers?  You mention defenses, but movement also factors in.  The Brick with 70 END can punch for 14 DC, and move his Running of, say, 15 meters.  Meanwhile, the Blaster can fire off his 14 DC attack, fly 50 meters and maintain his Barrier he set up last phase, a second kick at 14 END.  Maybe the limit should be “your maximum END spend in 1 phase without Pushing is limited to 1/5 of your END stat”.  Now the Blaster in my example needs what, 180 END, instead of 70.  Not a huge impediment.  I would also keep the DC cap, largely due to things that add DCs without adding END cost. I think you still need DC caps.  END is pretty cheap, so not a huge cost to bump up the AP/DC I regularly use.  But nothing in your comments indicates that other caps will stop being enforced.   Does this mean our 70 END, 70 STR Brick cannot benefit from a Haymaker?  That seems odd.  Although a Pushed attack would be a lot more effective (especially if he buys some extra END to allow a few +4 DC pushes with no restriction on his normal damage).
 
What happens to Increased and Reduced END under this model?  Perhaps both go away, given increased END (especially on a non-attack power) seems meaningless, while reduced END seems to accomplish little.  They may be more relevant if total END usage in a phase without pushing is capped.
 
Let’s think that one through a little more.  I buy my 12d6 Blast at 2x END, so I save 20 points.  Instead of 60 END, I need 90.  An extra 30 END costs 6 points.  OK, pretty much a no brainer that I increase the END cost and buy the extra END.  I think Increased END goes away under this system.  No biggie, as one goal was eliminating END bookkeeping, and increased END really links to that resource management aspect.
Even if we get rid of Costs END, Reduced END and Increased END, Bricks using Growth or Density Increase get a break.  My 60 STR Brick paid 50 AP for his STR, and needs 60 END.  Or he can buy a 15 STR and 9 levels of Density Increase, saving 9 points and getting +9 PD and ED and -18 meters Knockback for free.
 
How do Combined or Multiple Attacks work?  If I want to add my 4d6 Flash to my 12d6 Blast, do I need 60 END, or 80 END?  I suspect 80, given I am getting a combined 16 DCs with this attack, at no penalties (other than having to pay the points for both attacks, but I have to pay the same points for a 16d6 Blast).
 
But multiple attacks?  Our 60 STR Brick wants to knock the heads of two opponents together, so he uses a full phase action, halves his DCV and takes the -2 OCV penalty to both attacks, but he also now needs to either Push (and still can only get 45 STR on each target, since he can only Push half his AP), or have 120 END instead of 60?
 
OTHER END OUTGROWTHS
 
Do I still have to pay +1/2 to make an END-using power 0 END before it can be Persistent?  That seems like a ripoff if I could have kept it Constant and never had any issue with my END.
 
What about powers with Charges?  The advantage of 0 END is buried in the limitation value, but my DC will still be capped by END, so I get no benefit, plus I lose the SuperPush your system allows to those with non-charged powers.
Hmmm…for 60 points, and 60 END, I can have a 12d6 Blast.  If I make that 3 shot Autofire (another 15 points), and buy 4 PSLs to offset the Autofire penalties (another 4 points), and bump my END to 75 (3 more points), I get to make 3 12DC attacks per phase instead of 1 for 22 points.  Looks like I have found my workaround for Multiple Attacks! 
 
Actually, it feels like “cannot be pushed” is a bigger limit in a game where Pushing is enhanced like this, even more so than in a game where pushing is common and allowed with no Heroic Action or ego roll requirements.
I have not thought through the character design issues much.  On the one hand, if everyone's END (and REC, reduced END, etc.) spends change consistently, no big deal.  But some character concepts will have to buy more END.  How many Martial Artists have 5x their AP in END now?  On the other hand, a higher SPD character gains a lot, since he no longer needs to buy the END and REC to cover his END usage in those extra phases. 
If my character is knocked out, he is now useless after he recovers to 13 STUN (say, dropped to -2 and has a 15 REC his next phase), as he also has only 13 END.  Practically, this means being taken below 0 STUN takes a character out of the fight, unless we modify the "END after recovering from being knocked out" rules.  Maybe this is OK if we want to eliminate the "falls down, gets back up again" aspect of some Hero combats.
 
There are likely to be more ripple effects that would only be discovered in play.
 
OVERALL
 
Probably needs some more in-depth design and playtesting, but I think this could be a really "Supers-feel" modifier to the END and Pushing rules.  Outside of truly heroic pushes (or specifically exhausting powers like the Human Torch's Nova Blast), how often do the characters in the source material suffer fatigue from use of their powers in combat?  Really, only in long, drawn-out combats.  This approach would remove that inconsistent END management issue.

Squeeee! Hatchetman sighting. Yes!!

So many have already pointed out some of the extreme troubles with Imperial Japan, as it actually was in the 30s and 40s taking over the US in a realistic fashion. Be it the fact they'd be trying to do two extreme land wars in both mainland China and then the US plus need to maintain unquestioned trade dominance in the Pacific, there is no way for them to execute such a goal. Even their early war aims against the US were more retaliation for US embargoes and a desire to merely push out the US from the Pacific by displaying enough early force to cripple US expeditions into the South-East Asian parts of the Pacific wherein they could restock, regroup, and push out at far more unpredictable locations. A US force lacking Midway and Hawaii would find themselves trying to enter the Pacific theater through only a handful of very well guarded routes. 

Beyond all of that, one has to contend with the fact that the Imperial State was barely holding itself together even while all they were doing was winning in Korea and Manchuria. Countless officers attempted to kill high ranking politicians and even the Prime Minister. The top generals had essentially no direct control over their cores in the outer provinces. Politicians were scared into subservience by threats of violence, public sympathies that were extra strong when they were doing well, and the classic issue of looking one's constituency into the eyes as you tell them you will abandon all the lands their sons and brothers died to secure. Even the Emperor was only nominally in control in a very classically Japanese manner. The system was destined to break in that form regardless of their successes. In the real world there is no set of foreseable outcomes where Imperial Japan continues in any form we'd recognize for much longer than it already did. 

So, if we accept that perhaps the path of Japan from post WW1 was more or less fixed even if we change the details, why not completely change the past? There was, even still post Pearl Harbor, and idea popular with some politicians to create a Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia wherein Japan essentially unites the Asian populous behind a single banner. Let's say that there were a number of True Believers in this in the ranks of Japanese and non-Communite Chinese. These Japanese Metas were moved by the plights of the Colonized Asians and move to protect the politicians of this ilk. Perhaps these same Metas were on the front lines with some of the early Korean and Manchurian successes and thus hold a great deal of respect in the public's imagination. Likewise, the various army purges of these separatists were a decade earlier and far more successful. 

Now what we have done is set up the groundwork for a true world power alliance in Asia. The Japanese are still spooked by the downfall of Tsarist Russian and fear the spread of international communism. They move to work WITH Chiang Kai Shek to subdue the communists in the Chinese region and help arm separatist movements in India and IndoChina. These two powers will be able to create manageable puppet states in current Bangladesh, unite with Siam, and carve out Indo-China for the Chinese and Thais while claiming the southern tip of Malaysia and the islands for Japan. Japan, being a leader in Military Strategy, Technology, and a strong manufacturing base would be able to assume a more managerial role, ala Great Briton in India / Asia, A war in which the larger Asian continent is consolidated, unified, or otherwise paralyzed wouldn't be as concerned with US embargoes. 

Without Pearl Harbor, the US is far less likely to enter any war. Without the manpower of India, crippled trade routes from Asia (no rubber, steal, tungsten, etc), Great Briton would find it much harder to hold on. Perhaps we even concede that some of the One Punch KOs against Russia landed with more effect as Russia tries to secure its Chinese/Manchurian boarder allows Nazi Germany to work against the UK more directly. Maybe the UK falls, maybe it doesn't. But certainly they are broken in manpower, resources, and spirit enough to sign an uneasy peace. The US, which has been relying on War manufacturing and Ally Bonds gets involved too late to save the War for the Allies. The Anti-FDR movements and communist movements takes hold in the US and it fractures into a new civil war. Germans, Italians, Japanese, and Mexican forces all rush to pick a side and create a new puppet. The Japanese, unlike all the others actually have experience in effective puppet management and are able to gain strong East Coast ties using the rockies and deserts as a natural wall. Now you have an American region with all its fractured culture under the influence of Japan without the direct control. To get an idea for how this might actually look in practice, read up on how Both Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan  or even Okinawa were administered. While colonization is never a pretty thing, there was usually a lot of support for Japanese management; things ran on time, Japanese schools were high class (many subjugated folks tried to send their kids to the Japanese system schools because of the prestige). 

If you want to have a post-war cultural revolution akin to the US, it could be in a similar form wherein the new generation actually embraces in a non-cynical manner the nations of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and push the military and politicians to more fully adhere ot its non-colonial ideals (i.e., stop training soldiers how to kill by using live Chinese prisoners, etc). 

Those are, of course, just my thoughts. 

La Rose. 

The (secretly recorded and subsequently transcribed and published) discussions among the captured German physicists imprisoned in Britain after the US atomic bomb attacks on Japan make it clear they were not close to a working bomb either in terms of theory or in terms resources needed to assemble a critical mass of fissile metal.  In the days following the announcement of the Hiroshima bomb many, perhaps most, of their conversations were on the topic of the bomb they never succeeded in making, based on the telling but still really vague information about the bomb's yield (~10 kT of TNT) and that it was delivered from a B-29 (which gives you useful information about the bomb's size and weight).  For a while they could not see how it had been done.  That was about the theory, and it left out any consideration of the needed industrial base for making the thing.
 
I think they would have been more astonished to learn that the US took two more or less independent routes toward building nuclear weapons. 
 
One was the gaseous enrichment method, isolating the fissile U-235 from the less useful U-238; this plant was at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  The uranium bomb was theoretically easier, but it required resources in quantities that Germany had no hope of assembling from the areas under their control.  Gaseous diffusion of uranium more or less requires you to work with uranium hexafluoride, an exceedingly nasty substance, which required a vast quantity of nickel in the diffusion filters, and the valuable alloy elements (like, specifically, nickel) were among the critical "shorts" in wartime German industry.  I once read a passage to the effect, "Gaseous diffusion is easy to understand, but the only possible option for the gas is UF6.  The Germans looked at UF6 and its properties and shuddered, and spent the rest of the war half-heartedly casting about for a different gaseous uranium compound."
 
The other was transforming the more common U-238 into plutonium-239, which was done at the Hanford works in Washington.  That requires a remarkably complex chemical processing plant (complex because once it starts operations you can't send a human in there).  But plutonium is "hotter" (it's a more potent neutron source) and the actual bomb requires a more sophisticated design so that (1) it won't fizzle in your face as you build it, (2) it will explode when you want it to, and (3) it will survive intercontinental transport intact enough to do (2).  That was rather difficult, and it was the plutonium bomb that was tested at White Sands (they were confident enough in the uranium bomb that no test was deemed necessary).
 
Both manufacturing facilities required very large amounts of electric power, also; Hanford being only a modest distance from Grand Coulee Dam was important factor in the selection of that site.  Germany wasn't particularly short of electric power, but they didn't have the the almost limitless reserves of it the US did.
 
The Soviets succeeded in building their own atomic bomb in 1949 because (1) the Soviet Union and its empire is big enough they could assemble the resources to make the components, which the Germans did not, and (2) Klaus Fuchs gave the Soviets the information about how to produce the fissile metal and how the Americans were building their bombs.  There is debate about exactly how much of Fuchs's reports actually were directly used in the Soviet bomb projects, they did provide the huge benefit of the knowledge that someone else had done it and the general approaches used in their work.
 
There's also the issue that Germany had no plane (or rocket) that could deliver the bomb; Fat Man weighed more than 4 and half metric tons, and the V-2's payload was 1 ton.  Probably they could have reworked the FW-200 (the only four-engine bomber they had) into something that could deliver it, but it would have taken another nontrivial R&D program.  That would not stop them from putting it in a U-Boat and blowing up harbors with one, but you don't nuke Moscow, Manchester, or Magnitogorsk with that (let alone anything in North America), and they would have needed needed to do that to win.

Good game. I am on my third play-through now with Hardcore mode. It is a solid game with a decent flow. It could use some work to make it more playable beyond the main story. Mostly with keeping low value missions more available so you don't essentially get boxed into always needing a couple assaults plus high support. The RogueTech mod helped with that but it always seemed to push me into bankruptcy lest I pushed up the initial credit value. 
 
As of now I am having fun running a Jumping Orion LRM Boat with a MG Firestarter and SLaser Firestarter to run and punch. One even with a mega arm mod so it punches like an assault. Then the 4th is usually a AC20+ Jumping Hunchback or the Highlander. 
 
La Rose. 
 
 

Good game. I am on my third play-through now with Hardcore mode. It is a solid game with a decent flow. It could use some work to make it more playable beyond the main story. Mostly with keeping low value missions more available so you don't essentially get boxed into always needing a couple assaults plus high support. The RogueTech mod helped with that but it always seemed to push me into bankruptcy lest I pushed up the initial credit value. 
 
As of now I am having fun running a Jumping Orion LRM Boat with a MG Firestarter and SLaser Firestarter to run and punch. One even with a mega arm mod so it punches like an assault. Then the 4th is usually a AC20+ Jumping Hunchback or the Highlander. 
 
La Rose. 
 
 

I don't know that I would drop down to specific state details.  However, if one is looking at a reform of the tax system, I think there is a need to consider all of the options, and a need to consider the impact of tax systems in sub-jurisdictions.  It is amazing that the US has over 12,000 state and local sales taxes.  Would one Federal sales tax be that much added complexity?  Should the governments be looking to harmonize their sales tax rules to make life easier for businesses and consumers?  These seem like very relevant questions.
 
Many states are now grappling with the loss of deductibility of State income taxes for Federal tax purposes.  This imposes a larger Federal tax burden on residents of those States, in which the individual states have no say.  This is without any consideration of county/city income taxes, or any change in the types of tax either jurisdiction historically imposes.
 
 
Having discussed tax proposals with MPs and Senators in Canada, my experience is that they are not knowledgable of what a given tax proposal (or existing tax rule) achieves.  Rather, members of the Department of Finance paint the issue with broad strokes, and any private sector disagreement is clearly only the opposition of those who were unfairly benefiting from the existing rules.
 
That's not to say all complexity can be eliminated, but it should be possible to phrase tax legislation in more plain language, and reduce uncertainties.  The Canadian department of finance assures our MPs that there is minimal uncertainty in their proposals, and the government believes them.  Apparently, the drafters of the legislation lack any bias, and their assessment of the complexity is more informed than those of current Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada, or his immediate predecessor, both of whom have very publicly stated that the legislation is so complex and uncertain that it will create decades of costly litigation.  They gain nothing from making any misleading statement in this regard.  Who is in a better position to assess the impact on the Courts?  Yet their concerns fall on deaf ears.
 
That said, I also chafe when my MP refers a question or concern to the Minister in charge of that portfolio.  I did not vote for the Minister.  I voted for an MP whose job is to represent me, and my fellow constituents.  Unfortunately, as you note, we do not really elect our own representatives any more - we vote for a party.

I don’t think that there are any hard and fast rules for what you want. That being said, do you know what threshold you want? You could put an automatic side effect on the dagger that triggers a transformation attack. I’m thinking once you transformed the dagger into cursed dagger, then it gains the summon monster power. This could be a rewritten of the original side effect being summon monster.

Why not discuss taxes that are not presently part of the Federal landscape?   If I were undertaking a full tax reform exercise, I certainly would want to assess all possibilities.  I don’t think we are, though, nor do I propose to.
 
Regardless of the nomenclature one may attach, however, what we presently have are a personal income tax and a corporate income tax. Given that corporate income (or wealth) ultimately flows through to individual owners, I believe that the corporate and personal tax systems are appropriately integrated.  Much economic discussion has gone into the desirability of ensuring choices such as appropriate business structure are not warped by tax considerations.
 
 
Incorporation is quite easy.  It is often done for liability protection, not for tax reasons.  The US is on the cusp of change as corporate tax rates are being lowered, but prior to the late 2017 changes, pretty much every small business/investment I saw from the US was structured to flow all income out to the individual owners.  This might have been by not incorporating at all, but that carries liability issues.  Often, limited partnerships and LLCs were used to benefit from corporate liability protection while still flowing all income out to be taxed once, as the personal income of the individual owners.  Where only US owners are involved, the S-corporation was another means of having corporate liability protection without corporate taxation.  Some few Canadian jurisdictions created "Unlimited Liability Corporations" to have the ability to offer a corporate form which would be able to be classified as a flow through entity for US tax purposes.
 
With the US dropping its corporate tax rates, more planning opportunities with entities taxed as corporations are viable.  In the past, getting flow through status was crucial tax planning for most owner-managed businesses.
 
 
First off, based on my limited understanding of the US tax model, most partnership models. from the Limited Partnership to the LLP and LLLP or even the LLC , can choose whether to be treated as a flow through entity or a separate taxable corporation.  In the past, they generally chose flow through due to the high corporate tax rate.  Now, that is changing.
 
Moving down to Picketty, this is the question of wealth redistribution.  To some extent, it comes back to leaving homes to your daughters, whether we should have some form of estate/inheritance tax, etc.  Why do we work hard to build wealth?  Often, to build a better life for our children.  Imagine if we were told that we could not fund our children's educations, assist them in buying a home or starting a business, etc.  It would be a non-starter.
 
Then we get to that estate tax.  It's not taking money from me - when I am dead, I have no need for money.  Rather, it is taking away my choice of who will benefit from my efforts after I am gone.  Typically, it can all go to my spouse and the tax gets paid last to die.  But should I not be able to leave my wealth to the next generation?  Well, if I can, they get an advantage not shared by those whose parents were less successful.  But I worked hard to earn that money, and I should get to decide who benefits from it, shouldn't I?
 
But that means that the most successful get to provide greater advantages to their kids, perhaps grandkids and down through the generations as that capital stays in the family.  Often, it seems like we want to say "well, what I have is the product of hard work, so only those with more than me should be restricted in the ability to direct their wealth to the next generation".  Seems we are all in favour of higher taxes for the other guys, just not for ourselves.  Which comes back to our prior closing comment - we all want a system which gives us more than it asks from us.  We cannot all have that, though.  The math does not work.
 
I want to come back to "leave it to the experts", but I need some time to spend on that item,.  I don't think I have a lot to add to your other points, other than the reality that "simple" and "fair" tend to pull in opposite directions, resulting in added complexity for enhanced (perceived) fairness.
 
 

No, I mean
 
 
 
 
 
Well, my first bit of advice is that I don't think you'll find monsters in the Grimoire.
 
I'll also say that using the 1/3 cost multiplier for spells as you are will help give spellcasters a nice variety of abilities without in my experience precipitating a spellcaster gold rush where everyone wants to be a mage.
 
I'm not feeling well this morning;  I may be back later when I'm thinking better.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Sending the palindromedary out to the apothecary

Spells: the Hero System Grimoire and Fantasy Hero Grimoire. I prefer the former, but both have plenty of spells.
Creatures: The Hero System Bestiary. I've found I have to edit the monsters to fit the design assumptions and power levels of the games I run, but its a straightforward process most of the time.

You may consider getting Fantasy Hero Complete as a concise version of the rules (including a basic skill-based magic system). It is a much shorter version of the 6e rules (95% compliance at least) and would be easier for new players to digest. It includes a lot of the stuff from Fantasy Hero in terms of character templates, etc., and skills and talents specific to the fantasy genre. 

I agree that Vondy's spell method is straightforward and easy to get started. With each spell being a skill, it seems that you could simply add to the AP as you develop without making it too complicated with spell levels. You may require a quest or off-screen study time and a skill roll to change the spell, or perhaps have someone teach it, but that is easily varied based on your preference. (If you want to really make each spell scalable, you could make each spell a small VPP and vary its AP based on how much of a penalty you want to take on the RSR.)
 
Which brings up the skill roll issue: I think it's beneficial to have the "Requires Skill Roll" to simulate novice, intermediate, and advanced wizards without a spell level system. Generic Skill Levels could be bought to offset the skill penalties, and the more experienced players will have more skill levels. This simulates a novice being less reliable due to the RSR penalties, and how a more experienced wizard can virtually ignore the penalties once he has bought enough skill levels. So you could have a wizard with one big spell and lots of skill levels to make it more reliable, or a variety of spells of varying success based on their AP, or anything in between.
 
Does that all make sense?

You can also construct Package Deals (which come with some canned backstory) and hang those out there as patterns at the very least.

I think where we differ here is the implied premise that we can simply decide that an admittedly plausible prognostication of violence is sufficient to shut down protected speech. I'm not entirely comfortable with that. We don't do this when we know Antifa or the Black Block leaders are involved in planning the counter-protests. Rather, police meet with leaders, ban items that can be used as weapons, and very strictly enforce order. Should potentially violent right-wing protesters be treated differently than potentially violent left-wing counter-protesters?
 
 
No argument here. This follows the basic reasoning of the Washington State Supreme Court on carry that I mentioned above. You can carry a gun on your hip, but that gun will become a major factor in interpreting your intent and behavior. So, bringing them to a political protest and then being confrontational would likely cross the line into assault, menace, or a number of other crimes.
 
 
I obviously don't disagree that it is reasonable to interpret it that way and, quite frankly, it makes my vigilante bone itch. I'm very hard pressed, however, to to say a culturally disagreeable symbolic act in the public square as a part of a political rally would not be protected. On the other hand, I would suggest that a cross burning at a public rally allows authorities to interpret everything you do and say with a very critical eye (just as wearing a gun on your hip does) and prosecute you for any missteps accordingly. 
 
 
I think my concern is that this is a form of preemptive enforcement and calls to mind Minority Report. We don't have a trio of precogs who have foreseen a riot. Even if we did, until one erupts no crime has been committed. I'm not trying to sound cliche, but liberty entails some risk. Sometimes we do suck in our collective breath and hope for the best. 

IMHO no Hero System player is in a position to question anyone over speculating in too much detail.

For that matter, it's technically illegal to put Usable by Other on Regeneration. That's neither a criticism nor an objection, of course, this is one of those rules I have no qualms at all about ignoring. I was  putting Usable on Other on Regeneration before the Healing Power was even invented.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
That was before I had a palindromedary

I'm pretty circumspect about the boards right now, but my impression is that you are asking a genuine question in good faith. To that end, I'll try to give you a genuine answer in the same spirit. I'm here to have discussions.
 
Do I find that attractive? Not at all. The platform you are referencing is the Rothbard platform and dates back to the 1970's. For many decades the Libertarian party was basically a gang of truculent idealogues and the platform represented what its candidates, often militant and zany oddballs, ran on. Over the past two decades, however, the composition of the party has changed dramatically. The party has absorbed a wave of both democrat and republican political refugees, who now compose what is commonly referred to as the "pragmatists" within the party. An excellent (but long) article on how this played out in 2016 can be found here: Did The Libertarian Party Blow It?
.
The pithy maxims most commonly used to explain pragmatist philosophy are "free markets and free minds" or "fiscal responsibility and social tolerance." This influx has naturally resulted in a great deal of dynamic tension within the party, which is amplified by the fact that you have everyone from radical anarcho-capitalists to paranoid preppers to moderate classical liberals in their ranks. The Johnson-Weld ticket represented an internal triumph of the pragmatic wing of the party. You will note, much to the consternation of the ideologues, their platform was not the Rothbard platform.
 
At this point more pragmatists run for office as Libertarians than ideologues, and they are seldom in lockstep with Rothbard's platform. This clearly presents a serious branding problem for the modern Libertarian party. While those familiar with today's party have an implicit understanding of what these candidates stand for, those outside of the party see the old platform, shake their heads, and say "Oh, great. God help us. Another castle-in-the-sky Libertarian whack-a-mole!"  
 
Every Libertarian candidate I have voted for is playing an infinite game. This may because they have that luxury. They only now becoming ready for "prime-time" and are not locked in a machinean two-party blood fued. They don't have any real power to be interested in at this point. Unfortunately, Johnson was an affable but hapless candidate. He ran on values (an infinite game), but was ill-prepared for a fast-paced television campaign. Weld was the better candidate, but playing second fiddle. Was my vote in 2016 a protest vote? Yes, certainly. But it was also a values vote.  
 
In reference to myself, I only use the term "libertarian" loosely and adjectivally. I am a classical liberal who strongly advocates strict federalism, fiscal pragmatism, individual liberty, and social tolerance. I am also intellectually liberal. So much so that more than one conservative interlocutor has accused me of being Epicurean or libertine. That's not really accurate, but not so far off the mark, either. My opposition to contemporary progressive social politics isn't rooted in values. It stemps from my perception that the movement has been hijacked by a stridently illiberal and authoritarian mob. From where I sit, a regressive, revanchist mirror universe Tea-Party currently rules the left.  
 
That said, I am a "faint hearted originalist." An originalist because I believe in the aspirational values and system of government our Constitution represents. Faint-hearted because I don't want berobed bomb-chuckers wreaking social and economic havoc by uprooting ideologically imperfect, but reasonable precedents. I don't believe the Constitution is out of step with our essential values. I think it informs them. Look how far its brought us! The amendment process allows us to tweak it without doing its intent injustice. For me it is not a source of pathos, but of pride. Liberty for all is an unobtainable ideal. We will always fall short. For me, its the struggle for liberty that matters, and defines us as a nation. 
 
My biggest issue with our national ethos today is that, due to some very serious mistakes we've made over the past two decades, politics are now center stage. To a degree, that's necessary. However, everthing, inlcuding our diets and hairstyle and wardrobes and entertainment has become hyper-politicized. Politics is downstream from culture and political didacticism produces pitiful cultural product and shallow society. Most of the social change people are demanding (much of it quite justly) should be pursued on the cultural and interpersonal front. 
 
One thing I've learned is that you legislate culture at your own peril. The reason people are seeing such virulent backlash is that law is usually the wrong lever to pull. I'm not saying you shouldn't legislate some basic social tenets (reasonable discimination laws, for instance), but people too often forget that the law boils down to the maxim "violence is golden." Law must be enforced. That means sending men and women with guns into your neighbors houses and businesses to force compliance / get your way.  
 
As a result, when someone says "there oughta be a law!" I always stop and ask "is this something I am willing to use violence against my neighbors to achieve?" If its not a question of ensuring fair play, public health, public safety, or good order I tend to be circumspect about using the law (government) as a lever. You could say I'm "fiscally pragmatic, geopolitical circumspect, conservation friendly, and socially liberal," and that I live by the mantra "let people alone." I don't like butt-in-skis or bullies irrespective of which side of the aisle they hail from. That's the libertarian streak.
 
I don't know if I really answered your question. I apologize if I didn't. Let me know.
 
 

6e1, 391
 
 
So you could "fake it" by taking a 15- for -1/4 on each power and then have them required to buy a skill called "Magic" or whatever you like for how ever many points you like. Not exactly what you were talking about I don't think, but you can do it in RAW that way. You could even switch between the two, have them start out with Cantrips that are on the unmodified roll (because they have done it so many times it is rote) and other things have a -1 per 20 AP for familiar spells, -1 per 10 for less familiar, etc. They all could use the same number, just the limitation value would vary.
 
- E

I once ran a group of Dwarves. Each was a template with a different title. So the Fighter was called a Mauler, the thief was a Lockbane and the mage was a Runeforger. I just used the Keep on the Borderlands. However, the concept was that the Humans that ran the Keep hired the Dwarves to explore the surrounding ruins. The Dwarves came from their homeland to explore the ruins to see if it was suitable to relocate there. I dropped the KotB in the Western Shores and the Dwarves were looking to escape the Peaks of Dawn and resettle. I figured the old caves were part of an ancient Dwarven Hold that needed to be rediscovered. The Humans here would rather have Dwarf neighbors than Orcs attacking.