unclevlad

Something about soccer generates intense passion in its fans. It's a huge plus for the sport, and why it's the #1 sport in the world by a light-year. But one cannot control passions ALL the time, unfortunately, and sometimes, tragedy results.

Yep. Explaining Hero's underlying skill mechanics is straightforward...at least, as long as you're not relying on the book explanation, which is horrible. (That, IMO, is part of the problem.) The modifiers are easy to grasp...a small mod is +1 or -1. OK. No problem. 3d30? 41+CHAR? HUH??? It will not click with the players. A secondary appeal for Hero is you never need more than d6's, which are trivial to buy even in quantity. They're used in lots of games, so it doesn't feel like you need more special equipment or tokens. Using them in other games like Monopoly, makes them familiar. d30's violate all of that...BADLY.

You don't freeze to death in space. There's nothing to conduct the heat away from you, there is no medium to have convection steal heat away. If you can ignore the vacuum, you'll radiate it away, but that's very slow. Convection is the mechanism for the wind chill effect. More notably: 65 degree air is pleasant; 65 degree water is COLD. Even if you have a life jacket, and thus won't sink...in 50 degree water, you'll die from hypothermia in a couple hours. Surviving space means dealing with the vacuum. There's no heat exchange. The freon blast is all about massive heat exchange. So...yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense, if you know anything about physics. Uhhhh...because you can't. The extra +2d6 isn't coming from the ether; it's coming from your STR. 6E1 242: Bold mine. So there is no STR left over to make the other Strike.

Yeah, that's a hopeful thought, but it's more disturbing to me that they picked people from the news division, when, the damage was done by the opinion hosts. None of them have been canned. If we ask, what does Fox News value? This does not point to an attractive answer. I do agree tho, that it does suggest they *are* feeling pain from this, which was something some here doubted. Unless SmartMatic can get a similar amount, tho...I don't really see them being fatally crippled. I am, however, quite hopeful that it happens.

Well, of course. They were the most under-utilized people in history.

Nuggets enter the 4th up 2, but smack the Lakers in the 4th again. 119-108, giving Denver a 3-0 lead. Murray crushes it in the first half, Jokic nails it down in the 4th quarter. Lakers win the rebound battle. Win the FT battle. Get CRUSHED at the 3 point line...10-32, whereas the Nuggets go 17-41, much of that early offense. Teams up 3-0 in a 7 game NBA series, are 149-0. I'm gonna hope for 1-2-3-CANCUN!!!!!!!

Mmmm....ok. But a big question, to me, is the *scope* here. I'd think, generally, the state exercising this control is usually limited. This bill invalidates any local rule where a state rule exists. That's where the bill might be challenged, but...it seems the chance of success may be fairly low. I'm becoming very concerned that 2024 is our last chance. If we as voters, don't start pushing back, given the actions of the last couple years, then...when?

Oh, the anarchy isn't their end goal. That's a corporate-police state. But Merriam-Webster offers these: 1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : DISORDER Note that the anarchy is, in this case, targeted...at the cities who don't toe the low-government line. So, one can argue a different word choice...reprisal, perhaps...but my feeling is, the goal is to make things a big mess, for the cities...and to make much of their policies either void, or unenforceable. When the disasters happen, they'll try to put the blame on the city leaders. We'll see if this passes constitutional muster, but there, I have no clue. It's actually NOT a case I'd like to see at the Supreme Court. First: I don't think there's much in the US Constitution about devolution of power from the state to local authorities...just from the federal government to the states. Second, trying to draw such lines feels like it's opening the door for trouble. The states were given flexibility for good reason. That said, there is a route to overturn this in the SC, by going with various grounds...they're not being represented. 1st Amendment, the clause that the citizens can petition the government for redress of grievances...this becomes really shaky when there's no local government. The state can't address very small, localized issues effectively.

The Heat are bringing back memories of the Rip Hamilton/Chauncy Billups Pistons teams that won the title in '04, and backed it up by getting back to the Finals,albeit losing, in '05. This wasn't a team of all-stars, it didn't have the Uber Duo a la, say, Shaq and Kobe or Michael and Scotty. It was a TEAM. This Heat team plays hard, they never quit, and they play smart. They have an offensive leader in Jimmy Butler, but he's not the be-all, end-all. They did it again tonight. Outrebounded Boston. Forced more TOs. More composed. Now up 2-0, *going home*, after beating the Celtics by 6 tonight. That makes a sweep a *decided* possibility, which would be an incredible stunner. Pressure and criticism on Tatum coming back...after the abysmal first 3 quarters in game 6 last series, a good game 7 helped. But now...he's vanished in both 4th quarters. MIA. 11-11 from the foul line...that's it, tho. 0-6 from the field...which is bad, and also nowhere NEAR aggressive enough. 5 TOs. Celtics blow an 8 point lead starting the 4th. Not all his fault, but when you're first team all NBA, you gotta do better.

He said WRIST watch. You'd need to be Gargantuan, possibly Colossal to wear that. And need the STR...the case is 18k gold, so it'd be HEAVY! (Yeah, it's one of those "if you need to ask the price, you can't afford it" watches.)

Due to DeSantis' crusade against them, Disney pulled the plug on a planned shift of some people from California to Florida. It was a billion dollar project and would've led to 2000 jobs for Florida. Texas...my gosh, they want anarchy. From the article: I wrote "they want anarchy"...and actually that's when a bell rang. Because I think that's the point. They want to eliminate government involvement. The state won't be able to handle the local issues, so the net impact will be NO governance. Can't reduce any more than that. I also have to expect that this is going to let Texas businesses skate on LOTS and LOTS of laws...and I don't trust any large businesses, anywhere. One can argue the morality of this bill, versus the various other suppressive measures, but IMO, this one is a dozen steps beyond anything else anyone's enacted this century, in terms of sheer, bullheaded STUPIDITY, and probably a few steps beyond everything else in terms of disenfranchisement...which of course is the goal.

I'm hearing far too much complication for the sake of very little gain. You'd have a totally different system. The roll's based on Target Number OR LESS, so how would adding dice even work? What's the target number, how does a characteristic play into it? If the skill check stays the same and you have to make multiple checks, that slows play down tremendously. I've played Storyteller, Shadowrun, and some L5R with exploding dice and Roll X, Keep Y. I'm not entirely convinced any of them are an *improvement*...and all of them use notably different underpinnings. Some of em might even make really good supers systems, if you strip out the genre stuff and use the supers environment of your choice. (Golden Age, SIlver Age, more modern comic, urban fantasy generally, or a specific supers universe from a book series, as most have their quirks.) But I don't want to cobble an approach from any of them, into a structure that wasn't intended to use it.

You're just forcing me to throw points away to remain even. If you want to do this? Make it a Physical Complication. Characters NEED to make PER rolls, if someone wants that Blithering Idiot, well, it's a shtick that gets REALLY old, REALLY fast...most of the time it's not so much a point of characterization, but a power trip for the player, forcing the party to cater to him. But if it's really legit, fine...take it as a complication that gives a couple extra points to that character, rather than force most players to spend points just to get back to even. Or, allow Bad Vision: -1 to Normal Sight PER. -1 point. Or whatever. Figure what senses you want it to apply to, then figure out the total cost if you were giving +1...and that's the cost for -1. Also: I'd almost never allow this for touch or taste, and probably rarely for smell. How often do those PER rolls crop up? It's way too likely that this is pure min-maxing. Be VERY, VERY careful of how you process fictional material. Who says they're really all that smart? Is it a failure to perceive, or a failure to interpret...those aren't necessarily the same, and I think, far more often, it's the latter. If you want academic-smart, buy less of a baseline INT and something like It's also plot device, and almost always, IMO, grossly exaggerated. If you want good INT skills but not-so-good PER, then buy a more moderate INT, and +1 with all INT skills. Those levels do NOT apply to PER. This can, sometimes, be a pain...because those levels also don't apply to background skills. But, if that's the case, then use the "Inhibited Perception" notion from above.

I dunno, I think it'd be quite the attention getter if DraftKings and FanDuel logo teams met each other......

....................................................................... You're not secretly Death Tribble, are you?

I'm diabetic, and you want me to watch a video about pasta?????????????????????????? HOW COULD YOU??? That's cruel and inhuman punishment! (The one thing I miss MOST...is good pasta. The carb load is just too high, tho, and something like a pound of thin spaghetti has multiple batches...so it's not just one time, like, say, grabbing a pizza.)

The distinction may devolve to "elements" vs. "overall package." In general, it's harder to create an "overall package" on a small project. Cap has a shield. You can't protect "shields." It's red, white, and blue. Still a generic element. You can copyright the total package: round shield, red / white / red outer rings, blue inner circle with a star bullseye. Probably the only part of Superman's costume that can be copyrighted, is the highly distinct logo...even then, I'm not sure what would be allowed as generic. A blue S, on a white, square background, where the S is, oh, let's say the capital S from German Black Letter? Probably wouldn't infringe, especially if it wasn't located center-chest. In the world of watches, there are certain extremely well known (to watch people) designs and looks. Then there's copycats, who re-use the same elements. MOST of the time...that's legal, assuming there's no attempt to present my copy as your (many times more expensive, typically) original. One iconic, EXTREMELY expensive watch has --a recti-elliptical case...kind of a rectangle but with elliptically rounded corners. --a horizontal deck-style dial...raised strip, flat strip, raised strip, flat strip,.... but I don't think that's copyrightable...and I've seen plenty like it to suggest, no, it's not. The elements are a bit too generic. There aren't *that* many different ways to provide visual interest on a watch dial, or to add some character to the case shape. OTOH, I think Bell & Ross MAY have a copyright for their signature style: the dial opening is round, but the case itself is square, specifically invoking the look of an old-time instrument. It's that part that may make it non-generic. IP law is...bizarre. Especially at the stratospheric levels...the geeks among us, at least of a certain age, likely remember Apple vs. Microsoft, and Apple vs. Motorola...look and feel suits related to MacOS vs. Windows and iOS vs. Android. Huge, ugly, and IIRC, ultimately worthy of a Macbeth Award. Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Because that was pretty much the end result...nothing. Found this site that's worth a quick read: https://www.abounaja.com/blogs/copyright-infringement-cases Some of these cases turn on some...pretty narrow issues.

I see where CRT's coming from...and Hermit. For Hermit: copyright has become largely a tool ONLY for the corporations to protect their profit streams. The cost is not even close to worth the benefit for a small player. I know of one case...a game that never had market share, but got caught up, for reasons too convoluted to examine here, in copyright issues. Simply keeping a copyright lawyer on retainer cost him thousands per month. Another case...this one is suspicion. Dave Mottram is an illustrator, among other things. His caffeinated owls drawings are awesome...LOVE them. Those are his. He sold mugs and t-shirts through Society6...one of the many such print-on-demand storefronts...but there've been massive, generally TERRIBLE, copies made...so he doesn't sell them any more. I *speculate* it's due to copyright problems...he got usurped. To CRT's point: the growing concern over music copyrights. Ed Sheeran *won* his...by asserting what the Gaye estate tried to assert rights over, was just "common elements." And this doesn't even begin to discuss the impact of AI. So...on smaller more atomic stuff like individual images, or even possibly short stories? Copyright will become so unenforceable as to be dead in practice. On novels, sound tracks, or movies, it will last longer. It may collapse eventually...if you can't copyright any of the elements, it becomes harder and harder to copyright the combination. Not impossible...just harder. Also, when you toss out something like that on an internet channel, there's a pretty good chance it wouldn't be protected anyway. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/#:~:text=slogans%2C and other short phrases,not subject to copyright protection.

The distinction is the order of operations defined by the system. The limitation is applied first, THEN the reduction for the skill enhancer. So you're getting a 3 point skill, at -1/4, so --> 2. Then -1 for the enhancer. This would also apply to the levels...if you buy 5 levels, the standard cost is 8 but that drops to 5 with Unified. The hokey aspect is simply a problem with integer math, and it's why you should RARELY put limitations on skills...much less Unified. Re-read what Unified really means.

I agree that the doubling rule creates the obvious optimal points. Not sure if it's worth worrying about, tho; the whole system is nothing but optimal points that we use all the time. For END, for skill rolls, sometimes for costs (the size of an AoE, the number of charges, etc.) It's DARN sure not worth caring about anything that far back because 6E is too different from 1E and 2E. Yeah, the notional mechanics are the same, but the devil's in the details, and they're completely separate in too many areas. Removing STR from an HKA simply violates logic. The power behind the sword doesn't matter at all? That makes no sense. I'm not saying HKAs don't have problems; I'm saying this is the wrong direction to fix them. And if you're suggesting removing STR adds...does this apply to HAs? Or just HKAs? Because those are the only powers where it applies; it sounds like we're largely in agreement that STR Adds is gonna be a bad idea for ranged attacks. At the risk of attacking a straw man, not applying STR to HAs is awful, IMO, because I hate the exponential growth on lifting STR, and I darn sure don't want to compel melee types into martial arts builds if being able to lift a tank isn't in concept. The problem with HKA is that killing damage is a bad fit to the rest of the system, IMO, in that a 12d6 Blast is in NO way comparable, as a threat, to 4d6 killing. Get clobbered by a couple higher-damage Blasts, maybe you get knocked out. Get hit by a couple higher-damage KAs, you're DYING if you don't have enough resistant defense. A 4d6 KA will do 18+ BODY 1 time in 6. If an underlying premise of the system is to embody comics principles, and if one of those principles is "characters don't die, they just get beat up heavily"...then something this lethal is a BAD idea. Dropping the STUN multiplier so sharply, from 5E to 6E, shows that 5E KAs were clearly too effective; there was too much BODY and too much chance of overwhelming STUN. What 6E has is lesser, but still a problem: too much BODY damage, because you can't treat the average. There are too few dice, so the variance is simply far too high.

For an HA/HKA? It is prorated, per 6E2 100-101. For STR being added to a Blast? It'd be prorated for something like AP...no change there. If we're talking Can Apply STR to a Blast...that's an advantage that doesn't change the underlying DCs, so by my understanding of the rules, additional damage doesn't get prorated. If you both increase the underlying cost of the Blast, AND prorate STR as well...it gets too expensive, in most cases. It's the same cost as TK: 7.5 points per DC. Limiting the amount of STR you can add, seems reasonably workable mechanically, but the net impact is unbalanced. Extra damage in melee...yeah, it's to be expected. It's very open-ended. Extra damage for a ranged attack? It's not more expensive...but the only route by RAW is through ranged martial maneuvers and ranged DCs. They explicitly note...HSMA page 90...extra DCs are relatively rare. Yeah, that and a five-spot will get you a latte. It's much too passive a statement, but the point is...if you want power in your Blast, buy the dice in the Blast. And that's what Can Allow STR breaks completely. It's not *as bad* as Ranged MA DCs, but one thing it does do is likely allow you to *sharply* reduce your MP pool size or VPP control size...and make up for it with STR. Especially if you combine Can Allow STR with a couple ranged DCs and maneuvers. Basic Shot is +2 DCs and +2 Range; Quick Shot is +2 DCs and +1 OCV. You're looking at being able to buy a rather inexpensive Blast. What it'd mean...a mild investment in STR, like 30, would let you build a ranged attacker for minimally more than a melee attacker. 30 STR, 1/2 END; +4d6 HA; Martial Strike, Block, and Counterstrike...a nice simple trio. 12 points total. Not saying it's the cheapest, it's just a straightforward combo. 37, 16, and 12...65 points. 25 STR; 5d6 Blast, Can Apply STR, Reduced END; Quick Shot, Trip, and Ranged Disarm, so the package is effectively the same, 12 points and +2 DCs. 25, 44, and 12...81 points. 16 points isn't nothing, but if for some reason you *want* a 30 STR and 12d6 blasts...it's a lot cheaper than a 10d6 Blast, 1/2 END, and the extra damage from martial maneuvers. And we can't ignore the difference between 44 and 62 points in terms of MP size or VPP allocation. A core point: the more you can split things up, the easier it is to abuse the rules...and the more draconian it becomes to try to prevent such abuses.

To echo Dr. Mid-Nite to a degree, I'm not surprised either. To me, this feels like a direct consequence, even corollary to, the increasing political polarization. From the article: That smacks of polar contraction, as a) the doubters leave, and b) the remaining group reaches out less and less to other groups. When all believe the same things, there is no division. When all listen to one viewpoint, there is no division. Just polar contraction. Elsewhere, just in from NYT: Texas legislature passes a bill banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. Abbott hasn't signed it, yet...but it's gonna happen as soon as the paperwork is complete. Sad, but totally expected.

I don't live in the Phoenix area, so I have no reason to feel any pain if they move. I suspect residents are generally taking a more jaundiced eye, tho, WRT any such agreements. There's a growing perception that...no matter how good the agreement might look like, the overwhelming benefit is to the team, and the risk is on the taxpayers. Another angle is if sports has become oversaturated and overpriced...and hockey in a fringe market would tend to be a place where we see it. There's a plausible connection between the Broncos selling for, what, $4.5B, and the Commanders for $6B...and fan pushback, across ALL sports. Even in hockey...the median total cap is $73M. Obviously, this doesn't hold a candle to the NFL, NBA, or MLB...but it's still a LOT of money, and means even hockey salaries are something almost none of us can aspire to. Now toss in the Chargers abandoning their base. The Raiders moving 3 times in 40 years...that might sound like it's infrequent, but with these mega-stadium deals, the liabilities related to them extend out decades. Or perhaps another way to put things....the perception that there is no such thing as loyalty in sports. There's far too many cases of this. Players have no loyalty to teams. Teams have shown they have no cities. It's all about chasing the megabuck, and there's only one way to do this...exploit the fans. Directly or indirectly...exploit the fans. So why should fans have loyalty to the teams? Why should non-fans support them, because they're going to be paying for it too? Tampa: everyone hates the Trop, every day, in every way. But they can't get an agreement to fund a new place. Oakland: Same. Vegas: we'll see whether they'll support the new stadium for the Raiders or not. That said: I believe they've pushed hard enough to force the team to reduce taxpayer costs. DC: ehhh, this is arguably more complex, as it's harder to say whether it's a reluctance among the fans, or Snyder demanding too much, or...aother plausible argument is, WHERE? And at what cost? That entire area, DC and the bedroom cities, is pretty darn saturated. So Phoenix isn't that surprising. There's also little doubt in my mind that hockey's likely a very distant fourth, FAR behind the Cards, Suns and D'backs. And, whether the metro area is really capable of supporting 4 teams.

Because STR cannot be applied at a distance. You're giving it the increased functionality. Your example...you're getting a 12 DC attack for 90 points, and thus 9 END per. That is expensive. It's the cost of TK...and illustrates why the book includes the TK trick of buying a Blast using TK as the SFX, because the cost is just too high with straight TK. I'd rather keep it as an advantage on STR as that feels better to me. If it's built into the Blast, with a +1/2 advantage for Can Apply STR...how does STR apply? +1 DC per 5 STR? Then you buy a 3d6 Blast with Can Apply STR, and a 45 STR. 67 points. Same trick with the MP slots, if you like. They're only 2 points, cuz the blast is only 22. That's just too cheap. Your argument about the HKAs holds even more directly. OTOH, if the DCs from STR have to be counted as per a +1/2 advantage...the 9 DCs from 45 STR --> 6 DCs, and you've got a net 9 DC Blast...but it's costing 67. I can just buy the Blast at 9d6. A middle ground might be to borrow the 5E HA rule. Can Apply STR is a +1/2 advantage on Blast. It lets you add DCs from STR to the Blast, up to a maximum of the number of DCs in the Blast. (So a 4d6 AVAD, an 8 DC attack, can incorporate up to 40 STR.) This eliminates the abuse above...your 3d6 Can Apply STR maxes at 6d6. If you want a 12 DC Blast in this approach, you need a 6d6 Blast, so that's now 45 points. In this approach, the net effect is that 4 DCs...2 from Blast with Can Apply STR, and 2 from STR...costs 25 points. The advantage for the player? The STR becomes a separate power base. The 6d6 Blast with Can Apply STR is only 45 points, so your MP or VPP is smaller. On first glance, this might be OK. Get more complex, and I suspect it breaks down because of the core rules. Advantage stacking is cheap if you can keep the base cost down. 3d6, AVAD vs. Power Def, Can Apply STR, is 6 DCs for 37 points. I can now add 30 STR to take this to 12 DCs and 67 points of effect. I'm just seeing more balance problems in allowing STR to be applied to ranged damage. It also makes STR too versatile...the more ways you can combine things, the greater the chance that some of them will be abusive or broken. That's already a major issue.

Yeah, many of the studio talking heads expected this. I think particularly in Philly, where people probably still remember that perhaps the most dominating player ever, Wilt, never won a title while he was there. Never mind that while Embiid is also a dominating player...I think it's hard to build a team around him. Harden was a mistake; I think he'll be gone. But Embiid doesn't fit into a role...low post, mid post, high post? Pick something and stay with it more. Part of that is Toxic Three Syndrome. Some of it may well be echoes still reverberating from the abject disaster of Ben Simmons. And, sure, some of this might be projecting off Embiid's demeanor...but it's not very positive. If it's a player's league, then the tone set by your stars, matters. His doesn't appear to be a good one.