unclevlad

A side issue is actually specifically mentioned...6E1 p. 303. Teleport, UOO: A rifle's got at least a -2 to hit; a grenade's probably -6. (Off the top of my head w/o cross referencing.) This is a potential issue regardless of the actual attack definition, if it's targeted. I'm not a fan of the AoE notion, saying oh I can affect everything all at once.....no. You're asking for a form of multi-attack AND trying to get a limit on it by claiming it's only vs. foci. With teleport...the effect more or less fits, and whole objects are being teleported so it's legal...but it's pretty cheesy. Even if there's a campaign rule saying minimum Teleport 5m, the baseline's only 5 points. Even HEAVY advantages won't make it very expensive and it's basically unresistable. I agree with OP's assessment on the drain/suppress. Doesn't act correctly.

To eliminate all or nothing, make it Autofire TK, each targeting a different focus, one at a time.

Hmmm. Thinking on this a bit further... The US becomes more racist as a result, through the 50s, as Japinese ascension impinges on the remnants of Manifest Destiny. The pressure on the white majority requires an outlet...the Commies are controlled, moving against the Chinks and Nips doesn't seem so wise...so what's left? The civil rights movement is *much* more violent. This creates another major branching point...how does this play out? a) uneasy reconciliation b) African-Americans follow the American Indians into a path of isolation c) a 2nd Civil War The last is one where Japina might move. Occupy the West Coast to protect the children of its heritage. In this scenario...that could work. The US is self-destructing and weak, and hey, normal people *may* accept them if they can keep the violence away. EDIT: trying to figure if the US survives intact. I'm thinking not. The first departure...Texas. Possibly New Mexico with them. They have the size, the resources, and the attitude. After that, things could go many different ways. California could follow, for all the same reasons. Arizona's next...they're isolated too much to say in the US. Oregon and Washington could create another pairing. Japina can probably stand down if all this happens. They don't even need to run the West Coast as client states; the West Coast will be their partners anyway. Oof. Silicon Valley doesn't get populated by East Coast emigres...but Japinese ones. Google is a joint California-Japina company.

I like the notion of a Co-Prosperity Sphere coming to dominate all of eastern Asia, and Japan taking the US role as the dominant military and cultural power. If we're altering things there, then let's also tweak Europe. Hitler rises; everything through the fall of France goes as it did. The big change: Hitler gets assassinated in summer 1940. There were numerous attempts to do so throughout. If Hitler's taken out, then the Blitz doesn't happen, and the invasion of Russia probably doesn't happen. That still leaves Stalin under considerable pressure; Germany is much the stronger so it's not a real partnership, and Japina is squeezing on the eastern side. Good chance, IMO, Stalin is toppled. Mussolini loses German support and goes down as well. Germanly largely leaves Spain and Italy alone; on their own, they're very much secondary. And Britain is now isolated. As La Rose noted, the US never gets into the war. We don't need to assassinate Roosevelt; Hitler's assassination cools Europe enough so there's no strong argument for him to win in 1940. America crawls back into its shell, and its recovery from the Depression takes longer. (Wikipedia article on the Depression shows unemployment in 1940 was still 15%.) Over the course of the next 20-30 years...I think Russia collapses from the pressure. By 1990 at the latest, they're done...splintered. The long term impact, tho, is that Germany inherits the mantle of the USSR as the Cold War opponent. Japina...isn't necessarily liked but the US isn't gonna buck them. Japanese and/or Mandarin become the dominant languages, and the Co-Prosperity currency becomes the de facto standard, rather than the dollar.

Of name players, or just generally? I haven't paid enough attention. If it's name players, how much of that is simply due to the fact they're not on the field? And, does that mean we'll probably see a rash of em once real game start? It's also tricky to remember from one year to the next, how many there are. https://www.sbnation.com/2018/8/17/17705998/23-biggest-injuries-nfl-offseason-so-far-preseason-guice-verrett-beachum-baldwin-sorensen But that's just this year; no idea how many there've been in past years. It's like saying "it's been unusually dry [or wet, hot, whatever] this summer"...perhaps, but memory's bad on stuff like this.

Iuz: yes, I know the incident with FIFA. The corruption in the NCAA is influence peddling. And it's systemic and tightly interwoven. No, it's not obvious. FIFA's corruption is a big fat obvious tumor; the NCAA's is a slow, spreading, creeping one. As I said...different styles.

6E1 383. Emphasis mine. So you have to prove to me, if I'm wearing the GM hat, that you're significantly impacted. The Invis + DN...you did come up with something I'd have to consider. Linking the DN to the Invis is largely also equivalent to saying "in alternate ID only". That's a different basis for discussion. It's too easy to abuse this to get something for nothing. Can I take Reduced END on my Blast? You're giving me a cost break that may let me afford it. When I fire only 1 DC of Flash and 3 DCs of Blast...it doesn't matter. When I fire 2 DCs of Flash for 1 END, now it's 6 DCs of Blast, normally 3 END...but now 1 END. And what if I've bought the Flash to 0 END? It's still the lesser power. Say it's 1 DC Flash, 4 DCs Blast. Now the -1/4 Limit on the Blast you're asking for, equals the active cost of the Flash, and exceeds the real cost. That's de facto something for nothing...because you're gonna link it, the flash will *give you* more points if you buy it.

Those scenarios are more plausible. The further back you make the core divergence, the better the odds. I've read High Castle, but not The Divide. High Castle actually has Japan controlling just the west...IIRC not even all the way to the Rockies. Germany has the east coast plus. The midwest is a buffer. Mind, I still don't believe it, simply because controlling territory is much harder than people think, and technology is nowhere near the overarching solution it's believed to be. Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iran ALL prove that. Overgard's timeline makes little sense to me, but I haven't read it. I also think it's got more holes in it, militarily. There's a synopsis on wikipedia about Japan's policies in the US, from High Castle. But it's only set in the early 60's too. There's 50 more years to project forward. Surviving and newly developing supers can congregate in the midwest. Not hard to see a seriously ugly resistance movement forming. From there, tho, any outcome's possible.

And actually...... If you really insist on Japan pulling out the war...at least to the point of occupying the West Coast... Read Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. This is the premise of the book...that Germany and Japan won. It only progresses forward to when it was written (early 60s). If we try to push forward all the way to today.......lots and lots of monitoring. The net's there but HIGHLY restricted.

Not plausible at all. Look at geography, look at the population distribution at the time. Fine, they decimate California; so what? There was nothing of strategic importance in California. There's not even that many people...only about 5% of the total US population. So what gets achieved? The US is BLOODY FREAKING HUGE as a country. And at this time, concentrated on the East Coast. And superweapons of this level, is just not genre either. We're talking Golden Age, so 300, and built with straightforward powers. Plus, this requires there's no US heroes to respond.

But Japan is *massively* more vulnerable to this than the US. Remember something: the land area of Japan is smaller than the state of California alone.

In their way, yes. More fundamentally wedded to the money. The bribery is not even under the table...it's the TV contracts, the mega sponsorships. It's hundreds of institutions. It's the hypocrisy of coaches paid millions while the athletes get dog spit. The major protection of athletes that make money...think Jameis Winston. The degree to which a cover-up is allowed. The fundamental pose of the "student athlete"...which is true quite often but is also a total farce quite often. (Think all the one and dones in college basketball. Did Ben Simmons attend 10 classes in his spring semester?) Yes, more corrupt.

If you postulate supers, then you have to start talking their powers, and when they start coming on-scene. That said, I think it's largely absurd to think that Japan with supers, can still conquer the US, much less do that while keeping East Asia under their thumb.

That's not Takes No Body. That's 100 rDef, double hardened. Takes No Body says it would literally ignore being at ground zero of a nuclear blast; it is infinite defense. Well, OK, stunned into the next millenium, but physically intact.

The variance from year to year in football means no one's a terribly strong favorite, so a .500 team from last year, under the right circumstances, isn't gonna be that long a shot. That said, Browns at 60-1 is absurd. Now, basketball is less variable, to be sure, but the odds to win the conference in the NBA are here: http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nba-championship-odds-2019-warriors-lakers-celtics-76ers-rockets-sixers-lebron-james-finals/192xpsbbybgvu1fy8v6uht9ovu And yeah, almost half the teams in the league are 100-1 or worse...to win the conference. These days, heck...I know the first 4 regular season games count, but they're still *bad* football. It's the real preseason. A 4-0 start has collapsed to a 6-10 season on more than one occasion, or at least it's felt that way. 8-8 and miss the playoffs, for sure. Yeah, I'll watch, but like a lot of others, the amount's dropped considerably over the last several years. Some of it is the terrible game offerings, especially on Thursday and Monday. Some of it is simple oversaturation; there's too many games on.

And while Meyer can't be blamed for anything outside football, OSU has another ongoing scandal, IIRC. With all the recent issues, too, there's no way a head coach can claim "I did nothing wrong." The head coach is responsible. PERIOD. And the apology, 2 days after the toxic waste dump fire of a press conference? Talked to your lawyers and agent, eh, Urban? They whupped your backside to do this? Yeah, well, I believe I'll boycott every OSU telecast possible...in every sport. Because the institution's officers utterly failed, and showed their avarice and moral turpitude. The NCAA is more corrupt, in its way, than the IOC and FIFA combined.

What's being said is, as you want to use it, this is not an in-game power; it's dramatic license. As such there is no real point value assignable.

Not quite accurate, IMO. A condition that does not fundamentally restrict the ability to use a power does not count as a limitation for that purpose; it's stricty SFX. How does the Flash in this example restrict your use of the Blast? Under what circumstances? The purpose of Jointly Linked is for a case such as Invisibility to Sight, No Fringe, with a Usable Simultaneously that, let's say, nets out at +1/2. No Reduced END. That's 30 points; adders are killers when you want to slap advantages on. The other power is 4 DCs physical and energy damage negation. That's 40, so it's the greater. When we make them jointly linked, the damage negation now becomes burdened with a 3 per phase END cost...which also means it loses Persistent implicitly. THAT is now a limitation on the DN so you get the -1/2 on the Invis, and the -1/4 on the DN. Scenario 2: Same DN. Invis, No Fringe, Usable Simultaneously that nets to +1/4 only. Now add 1/2 END. Same 30 points, but the END cost is now 1 rather than 3. Yes, the DN is still fundamentally losing Persistent, but the overall impact is much lower. Yes, this is still likely worth giving the DN the -1/4 Linked, but it's borderline. Next, take the Invis to 0 END, even if not persistent. IMO you haven't imposed enough of a limitation to justify giving the DN the extra -1/4. Even tho it's losing Persistent, that's not going to kick in often enough for me to allow the limitation. That said, you can argue that the DN is still getting Nonpersistent, and that should be enough. GM's call. Last, of course, if you kill the Usable Simultaneously but go to 0 END, persistent...still only 35 points, still the lesser power...but there's absolutely no restriction imposed on the DN by the Invis. Therefore, there is no cost break on the DN. I think I would very rarely allow 2 attack powers to take Jointly Linked. Won't say never, but you need a good argument.

I don't think Japan would push a lot further west in China. Again, it's a matter of how much territory they can keep controlled, and the cost in resources to do it. That said, yes. One thing we're implicitly arguing for is that the Japanese arrogance and denigration of all non-Japanese would *have* to change. They can't maintain that much territory without collaborators, and their policies were too bloody for that to really happen. If the US becomes involved in Europe but NOT Asia...for example, let's say Japan and the US negociate an agreement where Japan walks away from the alliance with Germany in November 1941, and thus never attacks Pearl Harbor, in return for the US not supplying China with support materiel. First point: US still reindustrializes. A major consequence of WW II was the modernization of the US industrial base, and of course, none of it ever got attacked as happened in much of Europe. We still have the discovery of the Holocaust and the perceived need for the Jewish homeland, ergo the motivation to create Israel. This can proceed largely unchanged, I would think. If the timeline in Europe doesn't change too drastically, we still probably have the Marshall Plan. But first change...with Japan consolidating eastern China and the rivers, and SE Asia, they become a nastier threat, I'd say, to Russia. There's no one to respond to them. Australia and India probably still gain their independence, and I still think India's a bit too far away and too large to tackle...so I can see a much stronger alliance between India, Australia, and the US, with the focus on checking Japan. America doesn't get involved in Korea or Viet Nam, but I'm assuming a Russia that's even more paranoid about invasion than ours was, and a serious force committed to monitor Japan just in case. Oh...no Mao, or at least Mao is just a secondary rebel leader. Communism in China is a non-issue, and probably slows down the movement elsewhere. Stalinist Communism is not a movement to copy. The US isn't burned out on war, so Castro gets squished. It's a more tense atmosphere in the 50's. Less actual action but more tension. I can see the American Empire building...Cuba for sure after red-misting that damn Commie stooge. Ongoing tension with Japan suggests that the American civil rights movement has less traction. Indeed, it's not that hard to see the current climate of fear-mongering developing in the 60's. There's 2 threats...Commies and Nips. Can't trust them slant-eyes, no matter we may be trading with em again. But I can't project much past the 60's at the most, because I think this is too unstable. SOMETHING big is going to happen, and it'll shape the direction further down the line.

Using APG, too, you can have Regen per *segment* for 20 points per. I agree that the toon motif doesn't mean "never takes any BODY." That's not a character power, regardless of the power level. But if you absolutely insist, something like 75% resistant Damage Reduction, only vs. BODY (-1, cuz you're still gonna get stunned into the next administration), PD and ED 3 BODY per segment Regen, with resurrect and limbs That's 145. So on this path, I'd call it 150 points.

The jointly linked is written horrendously, but taking it as written, the greater power can get a limitation if the lesser power creates an unusual burden...not their language but my interpretation. Generally it's END,-related but if the lesser power is Obvious and the greater is Invisible, then it might be a reasonable ruling to give the greater the price break. However, this is NOT the default, and simply costing END is not in itself adequate IMO. Side effect is a terrible limitation because it's so vague. I know what the rule says, but it's what it DOESN'T say. Is -1 PER an acceptable side effect? Is that really worth, say, a 1/4 Limitation on a 50 point power? And trying to use this in a deconstruction approach is...tricky. On contortionist: Lastly, Contortionist allows a character to contort his body so he can fit into tiny spaces which he’s normally too big for. This is ideal for escaping from collapsed mine shafts, hiding in small cupboards, and so forth. If you can get through a collapsed mine tunnel, you can get through a chain link fence.

Your Linked is illegal by 6E1 383. When Linking two powers, a character should only take Linked for the power that costs fewer Active Points. If both the greater power and lesser power have the same Active Point cost, take Linked for the one with the lowest Real Point cost before Linked is applied. If their Real Point costs are also the same, apply Linked to only one of them, chosen by the player (hereafter considered the “lesser power”). So you can't take the limitations on both. It won't matter that much, I'll grant but it's there. In either case, these are not linked but Unified...you can't have one without the other, so they're a flat -1/4 on each. As I say, it's not going to change the costing that much Second point is whether what you're calling a 'side effect' is justified here, at the value you're giving it. That's very difficult to read, but IMO, you're overvaluing it. And is Obvious *really* worth another 1/4 here? Should you get both the Obvious reduction and the Side Effect reduction at full values? I'm not saying that Quasi Solid isn't overpriced; I am saying this deconstruction on shrinking is problematic. I'm leaning to drop the cost on the Quasi Solid because the very high base cost is an inherent problem when it comes time to consider any advantages; the impact is more severe than is normally the case. And I'm gonna drop the extra KB. AHHH...how about this. Rather than the weird size thing...+1 to Contortionist per level. That gets across the point that the form is more fluid, and lets it work more simply, in more situations. That's much nicer. On that basis, the simple deconstruction is 8 per level...12 active for the damage negation and +1 roll, -1/2 for Costs END. I darn sure wouldn't allow Linked or Unified to apply to the damage negation...MAYBE on the skill level but even that feels very cheesy. Obvious...ok. I can see that...but. Defense powers are Inobvious with a qualifier that they may become obvious through circumstance...so taking the limitation should be done with some caution. And the Contortionist aspect wouldn't really be Obvious despite the power classification...it's Inobvious that can become Obvious. So ok...8 on the high side, possibly 7. The DI discussion is making me lean to 8 because even the Costs END isn't always worth the full 1/2.

Thinking about the original question... If we skip the mass increase, and I'm gonna talk 2 levels of DI because the rounding works a bit more cleanly. If we define a custom "DI with no mass increase" we have a compound power +10 STR +2 PD/ED -4 KB All Unified...because DI is a single power for this purpose. OK, works to 14 points. The problem with considering applying Costs END is that the cost reduction of the limitation is lowered because there's another limitation already present. Without the Unified that's implicitly there, Costs END would drop the cost from 18 to 13. WIth it, Costs END would drop the cost from 14 to 10. To be sure, it's small but we're at very low point totals too. And as I noted...if you go the other way and consider DI raised to 0 END, persistent...it's 14 points. Some of the problem is when you roll up the limitations like Unified and hide them...you're lowering the AP. That might be the core problem; the real cost of DI might well be 4 per level, but the active cost is much higher. In VPPs and multis, this can clearly be hugely important. And if I can manage to buy the DI so I can either blow off the END cost altogether, OR buy it for just 1/2 END, I'll grant I've got increased risk but I'm getting a major price break in the process, in terms of both active and real costs. Pricing the mass increase as a standard, RAW side effect fails because of the arbitrary lower bound of 15 Active, if that's also considered the threshold for what a "minor or trivial effect" should equate to. And RAW, you're going to stay with the 15 point threshold for a very long time...WELL into the point where eepjr's point about mass becomes legitimate unless you execute some form of mitigation, be it flight or shrinking. Thinking of it this way: if we treat Mass Increase as a form of side effect, then a power bought as a mitigator must have the same AP as you're saving with the 'side effect.' And yes, if you're buying advantages on the DI, that's raising the effective AP reduction. So...2 levels of DI, 0 END persistent, would require a power with at least 7 Active. (Yes, I'm being a bit punitive and making you pay the full value of a 1/4 limit on the 11 base points per level.) Your 1" of Flight doesn't cut it. The "only to avoid crushing things" does not qualify as a Limitation in this context, as that's what the point is in the first place...to cancel the side effect. You can't have it do both. If you're gonna buy DI as a secondary aspect, then you get it cheap, for sure. But it's often the case that you *don't* need it 0 END or persistent...if you keep it at 3 levels, for example, you can blow off any Reduced End if you like. Drop it to recover? You're recovering so you're not attacking. The actual loss is 3 defense. That's not that bad. If you're stunned, again you're not attacking and your defense is only down a bit for a phase. If you're knocked out...ok, there's more reason to think it'll hurt just because the lower defense will last longer. But it's at a major price break which can be invested in a different, cheaper persistent defense. If you're gonna buy DI as a primary aspect of your character, then the costing probably works out decently, so raising it might make it a bit expensive. BUT at that point, hell...buy 2 levels DI to 0 END, persistent, THEN buy the components you want (maybe you don't want the KB resistance, say. or you want to go rDef) and tack on a Linked. Even if you can only wrangle the -1/4 version, since the DI will be active most of the time in combat, you're getting a usable point break and increased customization. So....yes. DI is too cheap.

Not meaningful. I'm not criticizing you, but you're showing an active desire to punish people from buying DI, it reads to me, and you're making the mass increase SEVERELY punitive. So of course no one's gonna buy it; your interpretations make the power almost completely unplayable. Hugh: I think the basis for calling RAW's price on DI might be flawed, but a similar argument might also show that 5's a bit much. So which is it? Hero is so wide open that there are inevitable loopholes even without getting into oddball Limited Powers such as the "only to not crush things" on the Flight, and how you attempt to deconstruct a costing on a compound power like this is a factor in balanced cost estimation. If things are just a touch off? No big deal. There's WAY larger issues. So if you wanted to charge me 5 instead of 4...fine.

Honestly, I think even the mass issue tends to be strongly downplayed because what is said is so vague. OK, it can cause problems. At what point, in what circumstances? OK, walking out on an icy lake is a Very Bad Idea. Springboard diving means springboard splintering. But where are the lines? And how much detail is now required of the GM? The front stairs of the building I worked in were long, freestanding stone steps rather than a monolithic construct. What was their load limit? I have no clue. So how much hassle am I creating for myself if I try to inject the realism I'm not competent to inject? I also wonder if DI isn't used much because a) people don't like that kind of brick that much? b) people think even more basic...like, sitting down in a chair when you're 900 pounds is risky. Or leaning against a table. People may create the expectation of a problem very quickly. c) bad associations? The classic DI examples are probably Hulk and Thing...neither overly positive.