unclevlad

Well, all Williams' TDs are rushing TDs, whereas the offensive TDs for Denver are rushing and receiving. Denver is, BTW, worst in the league by 2...to the Texans, who are the big front-runners for the #1 pick.

Ahh...yeah. Actually, it's saying you do get to use your Leap with your Glide, indirectly, just to get that starting elevation and velocity. It actually means, in this arrangement, that you want to buy upward leap...and you might get some interesting-looking trajectories.

What's the cost of those 8 PSLs? Granted, there's workarounds...even Basic Shot gives +2 OCV to offset the range mods, as well as +2 DCs. But it's generally going to be more, and often much more. Even more: the GM is much more likely to see "8 !!!! PSLs??" and raise a big red flag. The FMove element is more subtle. I think it shouldn't be allowed as a ranged maneuver element because 6E has a defined maneuver, Strafe...and that has a caution sign. The penalties and rules are far more explicit, and tougher. Using Moving Shot, can you pick the point at which you shoot, for determining the range mod? You can't do that with Strafe (except by permission). If they were at -4 to hit you, you're at -4 to hit them. If Moving Shot lets you shoot at 5m away, no penalty, then that's a huge effective OCV increase, and the -1 OCV for the maneuver is almost meaningless. Moving Shot also does not incorporate a velocity-based OCV penalty; Strafe does. So your strafing run where you wanna move 35 meters, and starting with a range mod of -4? You're at -10 OCV, AND -2 DCV. OK, Strafe allows the GM to say the Range Mod for the attack can be determined from any point along the path...and I probably would...but you still have the -v/6. AND, this is a maneuver penalty; you can't offset it with PSLs, you have to use CSLs. More expensive. And you have the -2 DCV. So elevating Strafe to a martial maneuver with the combat effects listed? That's way, way more than 5 points at higher point levels.

Mymymymymymymy...........a most excellent level of chaos! A&M 38, LSU 23. USC just picked of ND...inside 5 minutes left, up 10, and now with the ball just outside the red zone. Should let them close it out. Assuming so...the top 4 are pretty much set and locked, without much room for argument. Georgia, Mich, TCU, USC. If they all win their conference title games, there's no dispute...odds are, not even for the seeding. Oh yeah, that's the door slamming. 16 yard TD run on 4th and 2. Extra point makes it a 3 score game with less than 3 minutes to go. Even TCU probably gets in now, unless they get spanked, I think. But if USC loses...OSU or Bama? I suspect Bama. Who else? If both TCU and USC lose...OSU *and* Bama? I doubt it; that's 2 Big 10 and 2 SEC, and I think the committee will want to avoid that at all costs.

And as for fortune, and as for fame I never invited them in Though it seemed to the world they were all I desired They are illusions, they're not the solutions they promised to be The answer was here all the time I love you, and hope you love me Don't cry for me, Argentina Lionel Messi's Lament....?

Can we cast a Quicksand spell on his landing spot after he whiffs the kick?

There is no doubt, Clemson's out. They were #8 before, but a home loss to an unranked team? No good wins? Georgia's an absolute lock. Michigan is probably a lock but losing to Purdue, if they win today...they're a 4-loss, unranked team. That might raise some doubt. TCU might be in even if they lose next week...they're kicking butt right now. Cuz after that? Yeah, as was being said on the Iron Bowl halftime show, OSU lost *bad*, at home, and to a team without their top back. Their best win is Notre Dame, so they really want ND to beat USC. Clemson's dead. USC has the clear path, then...Bama or OSU? Bama wins that comparison, I'd think. If LSU beats Georgia, they'll have a compelling case. So I think: In: Georgia yes, Michigan unless they just play horribly Win out and in: TCU, LSU; USC if LSU loses to Georgia Everyone else will need the right upsets. Meanwhile, the Utah-Colorado game is showing why college needs a mercy rule. How often does 42-0 at halftime UNDERSTATE the dominance? Looks like...it does here. First downs, 20-1. Yards, 379-16. Yards per play, Utah a bit under 10, Colorado less than 1. Utah's had 7 possessions...and faced 3rd down 3 times. I'd say Utah avoided any chance of a letdown. Oregon's winning handily now, so that sets up USC vs. Oregon for the conference. Oregon was only #9, tho...even if they beat USC, I don't know if they can rise enough...maybe if TCU also loses in their title game, tho.

I do that all the time.

Wow. Michigan ultimately pulls a pretty major beat-down. OSU loses their cool...a terrible (as in, 5 yards out of bounds, well after the play was over) head butt. Another post-play unsportsmanlike...they didn't show this one, instead cutting to Johnson and Klatt to let them pontificate. Both were serious field position changers. Stroud panics in the red zone, trying a desperation forward lateral; it's bobbled and picked off, largely sealing the deal as OSU was down 15 at the time...and that killed the scoring chance. Michigan *gashes* the defense, especially in the 2nd half, repeatedly; the door-slammer was the 3rd play after that pick. 3rd and 3 at the 15, OSU has to crowd the line, desperate to stop the 1st. BOOM...back breaks through, and there's noooo one who can catch him. Over 500 yards for Michigan's offense, mostly in the 2nd half. 45-23 final. I think OSU is on the outside at this point...quite a few things have to go right before they can get into the playoffs.

Then why was it omitted from the ranged maneuver elements? Why is there no FMove maneuver in Gun Fu or Enerjutsu? The simpler explanation is as HICC suggested...the inclusion in An Ch'i was a copy-paste type of oversight.

Yes, it's Moving Shot. There is no FMove element as a Ranged element in HSMA. Only as an HTH element. The structure of the elements says that they don't implicitly carry over: Dodge, K-Damage, and NND Damage are not supported for ranged elements. Also, costs are not necessarily the same. HTH OCV/DCV is 1 point for +1 up to +2, then 2 points for the +3 max. Ranged, it's 2 points per, max +2. So you can't say Moving Shot's FMove is 3 points. You have to work the other way. -1 OCV is -1 point. The maneuver is 5, so the FMove is 6.

I defer to the Landry rule. Way back in the day, when the Cowboys drafted Tony Dorsett out of college, the question of how to pronounce his last name came up. Until the first practice, when Landry bellowed "dor-SETT!!!" Question settled. I wonder how many of the writer types here even recognized the distinction between the compound and the noun phrase. I consider myself generally pretty literate and well-informed...but I wasn't an English major, or anything close. Cool video even if it does make me want to scream...

I sincerely hope no one listens............... The playing of Christmas music should be strictly limited to the month of December. Same with the use of Christmas lights...altho I might get my outdoor lights set up. I have a very nice, tall, tree-like bush that I run a string of lights through. And maybe look to get something else for the front, come Monday's shopping trip.

Well, look at it this way. The bar's pretty low right now, and Rhule turned around a very damaged Baylor program after the big scandal related to sexual assault/harassment issues. Frost arguably wasn't ready for a Big 10 level HC position; Rhule should have no issues there. I do agree, tho, that it feels like a tough job. But hey, he's still owed the money from his Panthers contract, presumably whatever he makes at Nebraska only offsets it. That's a nice situation from which to take up a challenge. Meanwhile, Michigan-OSU is pretty entertaining. Fair bit of defense overall...but numerous big plays too. 20-17 OSU in a tit-for-tat kind of game as halftime approaches.

Oh, I know I can add Accurate to the Leap. That's the easy approach by the rules. And, no, I don't have any particular scenario in mind. I think you've identified the point...what the rules are with regard to mixing movement rates that should be compatible. Actually, looking at things, the easiest approach might be 1-2 levels with Leaping...hitting the target hex is only hitting DCV 3, with the range mod...and the max range mod for a full non-combat leap (there's an additional NC mult I wasn't mentioning; it wasn't material to the point) isn't that high. The point about mixing movement modes still comes up, for purposes of shaping the trajectory of a leap...can you leap 12m in, say, a warehouse with a 4m ceiling height? Normally it requires 6m; mixing leap and glide would allow it easily. But especially with movement levels with all forms of movement...I'd say it's reasonable.

Ahh, there it is. Thank you for the cite. Digging that out would be a pain. Yeah, 6 points is what they're assigning, but note the style. Throwing knives, darts, shuriken...very short range, relatively low damage. This isn't the flying sniper style, it's "disrupt A while moving to attack B." It may well be a carryover, but as long as it's kept in the context...and it is a 5 point maneuver, with no bonuses of any type...I don't think it's a problem. Whether I'd allow it with high-damage, high-mobility types a la Enerjutsu? I'm inclined to say no. The rules don't provide for it. If we start from Strafe...that's a combat maneuver, so you can't buy penalty skill levels to offset the OCV and DCV mods. You can buy 2-point CSLs with Strafe...but that's 2 points per, not 1 as it would be in the martial maneuver cost structure. If you want to buy off the DCV mod, then you need 3 point CSLs. And when you start from the basis that Strafe's already a Caution-level element, making FMoves with ranged combat is something that should be handled with exceptional caution. Secondary thought: An Ch'i feels like a Ninja Hero martial art, or agent-level...200ish points. 5 points becomes a notable cost. For 500 point supers...not so much. Agent-level movement is also generally rather lower than supers-level. So what's probably flavorful at lower levels, likely becomes dangerously abusable at higher levels.

Strafe is an optional combat maneuver. 6E2 p. 88. I don't see anything in 5E that works out the same. In short, Strafe is -2 DCV, OCV penalty of velocity/6, and the range mod applies. RAW says, it's from the point where the movement *starts*...so it may well be high. There are other technical elements as well. HSMA doesn't have FMove as an element, but the rules in 6E2 suggest they're not all that needed...and the conditions/exceptions run 4 paragraphs in 6E2, so that's rather long to try to shoehorn into a brief description for HSMA. AND, it's given a yellow Caution sign, which means it's probably not suited to be used normally. How do you arrive at 6 points? I don't have UMA, just HSMA. HSMA has no velo-based OCV penalty; Move By has a flat -2, but a Move By is a little different. A Move Through has a v/10...but a -3 DCV. HSMA has the Gun Fu and Enerjutsu styles; neither one includes a maneuver with FMove.

In my experience, in fantasy, reversing an aging attack is *extremely* rare and difficult. That said, raising the dead is often hard...but doable. Reversing an aging effect can't be any worse, don't you think? Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame series had a case where one of the characters died and had to be raised. The cost wasn't monetary; it was service of a couple different types, to the Church/god involved, and very, very serious. If you're familiar with Vampire? Another way to phrase it would be a life boon. For removing aging, the service required would tend to be related to how much aging was involved. Couple years...with a 20 year old victim? Not a huge big deal, it likely wouldn't matter. Without more life lost, it probably wouldn't impact the kid for 15 or so years, and the active lifespan of an idiot who seeks out these opportunities is rather less than that. 😁 If it's something like 20 years...it might depend on whether or not that aging starts translating into physical infirmity...permanent -1 to all DEX rolls, -1 OCV and DCV, and -3 to DEX for purposes of determining initiative order. With that, then the damage, and therefore cost, is HIGH. Without? Pretty mild. Also note that aging attacks do mean you have to think about indirect effects like this.

Concept has Leaping 12m, and Gliding 12m. They're separate powers, can always be used together. The question in my mind: would the Gliding allow the character to have the benefit of Accurate on his leaping? It feels like it should to me. The Gliding would allow trajectory shaping. Or would you allow this...with Noncombat Decel on the Gliding only? Cuz that'd do it, for sure, but it feels like overkill.

Also, I just noted: Longevity (Immortal) would likely be rejected by almost all GMs. There are some limits on how rare an NND defense can be, and full immortality is generally VERY, VERY rare in any related genre, and in-game. Heck, even going with Longevity: 200 years is typically not going to come into play for a PC. D&D, 1st and 2nd Ed. Wish, sometimes Miracle, Haste. Probably some others I've forgotten. Haste was, IIRC, 1 year. Wish was 5. The problem was, it wasn't enforced, for the reasons you mention. Granted, in 3E, Wish went to an XP cost...and that was just as bad. mechanically. (This was even admitted by, IIRC, Andy Collins back in the day. XP should never be a currency.) Another way to do a corruptive-style attack would be NND (Regen). If you wanted to limit it to, say 20 minutes or faster, I think that would fly; per minute would be borderline to me. Hmm. Another thought...expensive as heck, but interesting. RKA no range, tied to a Dispel Healing/Regen, Time Limit 1 hour. Not the same as aging, but it will throw the fear of God at the PCs.

Lessee...US/Iran. US wins, Iran drops to 1-0-2, with at least -3 goal differential. Iran is out, as US and England have more points. England loses to Wales, they both go to 1-1-1. England is +4, Wales is -2, so Wales has to win by 3 to move to next tie break. US/Iran tie. US is out; Iran and England have 4 points. Wales beats England, they're also 1-1-1. They must be better than -2 on differential, so they beat out Iran. As above, they probably don't beat England on the tie breaker. Iran beats US. US is out, obviously; Iran is in. England is in as the #1 seed from the group with a win; #2 seed with a tie or close loss, per above. So...yeah, ok. Had the US lost, England is in with 2 wins...but they're probably in. US has to beat Iran in either scenario, but if Wales beats England, it might come down to goal differential, US vs. Wales.

From the story: Now, OK, it's easy to assert the school districts might've been somewhat inclined to ban them anyway, but in some cases? Probably not. A year and $2000 is a very, VERY serious consequence, so it absolutely creates a preference to ban. (Plus, while it might not be automatic, anyone convicted here would very likely be fired, and effectively blacklisted.) EDIT...got merged. Oh well. Separate report: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/25/1139180002/twitter-loses-50-top-advertisers-elon-musk $750M of advertising *this year*.

FTFY EDIT: recognize, we're talking college-level teams. CU has a practice squad only.

Also note that this is a much nastier attack in a story, than it tends to be in-game. It's based on the fear or dread such an attack induces. The players can't feel the visceral, horrific notion of their life literally being taken away. Of course, that just says, make sure your storytelling chops are working right.

Another amusing game. Vikes needed it; most of their wins have been of the Little Debbie Cupcake level. Had some hopes for the Giants, but...not much expectation they'd win. Oh well. EDIT: Vikes win, Detroit loss gives the Vikes 5 game lead over the rest of the division, with 6 to play. Magic # is 2...and even if they lose out, the Lions, Packers, and Bears have their own round robin which means they'll hand each other some losses.