VERY scary stuff.  I remember Gathers as well.  Bias...that one, cocaine was considered a major factor.  Reggie Lewis' case was...contentious, to say the least.  I remember when that one happened, too...and the very first thought I had was, oh man...Celtics again.  Drugs again???  I hope not!!!  But that question was never clearly resolved.

USC had a separate incident last summer, with another freshman recruit.  Another cardiac event.  The kid came back to play, but his season was strongly curtailed as the team medical and training staff kept a VERY!! close eye on things, as they absolutely should.  The details matter in terms of how things will go moving forward, but the careful, methodical approach can be safely assumed, particularly given that Bronny has SUCH a massive profile.  

We'll all start with hoping Bronny's health is the top priority...which suggests there's no way he can be NBA-ready for 24-25.  Makes ya wonder if LeBron will structure things to be a part-time player for THAT season, at a MUCH lower salary, so he can conceivably play in 25-26.

From the recipes I saw, the caramelization is one of the big features of the recipe.

1 hour ago, slikmar said:

The problem is, MLB set rules to help the game get in motion away from the 3 true outcomes (strikeouts, walks, HRs) and its working, but that means we have a whole generation of players not actually trained for said motion.

I can only partially agree.  Come on...base running 101, you tag up when a ball is caught.  That started in little league.

Much of it?  I don't think it's so much that players haven't been trained to run bases, it's that they're trained to NOT THINK.  To be mindlessly aggressive, throw out every runner, try for every base...even when there's no chance of it working, or a really slim chance.  Even when the situation says NO.

It isn't even the 3 true outcomes.  Heck, I'd bet players never heard of that until quite recently...that's a stat geek's point.  There's indirect applicability, in that hitters were mis-taught for ages.  Always swing for the fences, strikeouts are acceptable as long as you can blast the ball.  Pitchers taught to avoid contact...maybe that's 3 true outcome related, but I'd say blaming 3TO is putting the cart before the horse.  3TO is an attempt to isolate the pitcher-hitter interaction, separate from the defense.

Condensed down:  players are taught skills...not the game.  Second point:  the push to be noticed.  Want to make your all-city little league team?  You have to be good...but you have to stand out.  Same with all-state in HS, or catching a scout's eye.  The summer sports camps, run mostly by the sports gear/shoes companies?  That's where you get those 3, 4, 5 star rankings you hear about ALL the time with football and basketball college recruiting.  You have to stand out.  And of course, you're ALWAYS!!!! taught to give 110%!!!!!  Don't THINK, just GO!!!

In part, because it's not  just narrow aspects of baseball;  it's not just baseball.  What's valued more, a dramatic slam dunk, or adding 10-15% onto your free throw shooting percentage?  In football...sticking the ball out to try for the extra foot...thereby exposing it, and sometimes losing it.  There ARE times to do that...but more where it's wrong.  There are roots deep in the overall culture of sports here.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/world/gulf-stream-atlantic-current-collapse-climate-scn-intl/index.html#:~:text=A new study published Tuesday,a giant global conveyor belt.

2 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Barrel-Aging Has Come for Chocolate

Welllllllllll.............

I may just have to try one or two of these come holiday time.  As a little indulgence.  

Not the best time of year, tho, to post the story, Eater.  

WARNING to those interested:  IT IS PROBABLY TOO HOT TO SAFELY SHIP CHOCOLATE in many parts of the country.  

EVERYONE botches the fundamentals, it seems.  D'backs had a good handful of them over the last several games...runner tries to steal 3rd with 2 outs, was one 1 remember.

There was a very recent game where the 2 analysts were former players.  None out, batter smacks a ball, easy double...but then he tries to stretch, and he's thrown out at 3rd.  The (@#$(&@#$ analysts are saying "well that's not so bad" even after a suggestion of "NOT GOOD play!!"  

Base running is THE PITS.  It's by far the worst phase of the game, and has been for YEARS.  That analyst reaction kinda set me off...because thinking it MIGHT be OK shows why things have gotten so bloody bad.  

Perhaps a new low just now, for MORONIC base running.

Bottom 7, visiting Rockies up 6-1.  Nats have 1st and 2nd, none out.  Line drive to 3rd, snared.  Runners are in bad position;  3rd baseman tries to get the runner on 2nd.  Not a terrible play but he doesn't have a good target...and throws the ball away.  Runners move up.  

The runner on 2nd tags 2nd first...the ball *was* caught.

The runner on 1st?  Never gets closer than 20 feet to tagging back up.  Everyone in the stadium knows exactly what's gonna happen.  Yep.  Appeal's made to 1st.  Runner's out.  

Hoo boy....then the Rockies get runners on 1st and 2nd with 1 out.  Pitcher turns to throw to first...but the first baseman's not there, so he eats the ball.  BALK!!!!  SOME kind of comms breakdown.

Terrible fundamentals.  Happens way, way too often.

Some thoughts on LL's STR Adds To Damage.  It's not that easy to use.

In 6E, the dice added from STR have to be notably higher than what you'd get just adding more dice to the Blast itself.  25 STR, say...6d6 Blast with STR Adds, you get 2 more dice.  Nice.  8d6?  You only get 1 more.  So there's a balancing act.  Also, this is increasing the END of the base blast, THEN you have to spend the END for the STR.  Not a big difference...and it's possible to play END Break Point games...but it's there.

5E would seem the more natural problem child...but...this is NOT!!! applying Ranged to an HA.  HAs get a unique treatment...the HA increases the base damage from STR.  In essence, that *is* saying it's STR, only to do damage.  Energy Blast is an attack in itself, so that marks the upper limit of how much damage you can add from all other elements.  STR is second only to DEX in value, because of figured characteristics, but if you want 35 STR, say, to take advantage of the figured characteristics, you have to buy a 7d6 Energy Blast, with a fairly expensive advantage.  And, if only 7d6 Blast?  You can't buy martial DCs, or maneuvers with +DCs, or convert levels with Blast to damage.  You're capped.  Note that it's also fairly expensive, and again, the END cost increase has to be addressed.

It's legal in 6E;  in HD, I think it's the only way to do it.  What is, and isn't allowed through a naked advantage is something to be discussed with the GM, tho, as RAW is extremely nebulous here.

I wish HD supported a limitation on an advantage...but it just doesn't have the underlying structure needed, and to be fair, it would get rather complex.  Imagine an MP with common mods, a power with standard advantages, a limited advantage, and a standard limitation.  YOUCH!   There'd also have to be a formalization of how this impacted the active points, so...it's not simple. 

EDIT:  Duke...yeah, back in the day, I had a spreadsheet that handled MPs and ECs and figured characteristics and the like...I think it computed max velocity using the older non-com rules.  If you're doing that, then it can be straightforward to simply convert every advantage to its point cost...and add them all up.  Doing THAT, then applying a limitation to an advantage is easy.

What's the application?  Cuz IMO this doesn't rise to the level of "equipment" unless your tech level is rather low.  No points, no definition, in most cases.  If I absolutely MUST define it?  Images, sight group, with a -2 limitation of "what's in front of it".  But why define it? 

IMO, no.  A movement mode suggests that you have control.

Also,  how are you thinking CE would apply?

Rather than a movement mode...come to think, from a physics perspective...terminal velocity is the point at which the force exerted by drag, as you move through the medium, equals the force exerted by gravity.  Drag points up;  gravity points down.  (Buoyancy comes into play, but would be negligible for this discussion.)  Gravity is basically constant.  Drag force is a function of velocity and drag coefficient...how does the medium affect your movement?  A parachutist can adjust his drag coefficent before deploying his chute, by adjusting his position in the air.  Upright, arms and legs in tight?  Faster...even much faster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity#:~:text=Terminal velocity is the maximum,G) acting on the object.

So if a power essentially alters your drag coefficient, it would, as you note, cap your terminal velocity.  If your terminal velo is 20 m/s...note that this is 1/3 of the book's terminal velo (6E2 141) of 60 m/s.  That's enough that I might adjust how long it takes to reach terminal velo, as the drag kicks in.  (Drag increases with the SQUARE of velocity, so the high drag would become a factor once you start having some fall velo.)  So maybe 10m in segment 1, 15 in segment 2, 20 in segment 3 and beyond...just to be reasonably simple.  

But also note that per 6E2 140, once you're moving 20+ m/s, the falling damage is 1d6 per 2 m/s of fall velo.  That's still 10d6.

So, a power that alters your drag coefficient?  That would be fine.  I'm NOT!!!! invoking Flight or anything else.  Flight requires phases, which makes things a mess.  Nope.  Make a new one.  Slowfall.  Definition?  Lots possible.  Let's start with a relatively tight one, by my lights anyway:

1 CP reduces your terminal velo by 5 m/s....so 10 CP reduces your terminal velo to 10 m/s.  The power is Constant, and costs END.  You can abort to this power.

Variants?  1 CP reduces terminal velo by 10 m/s, would be an obvious one.  I'd probably keep the rest the same.  If 1 CP for 5 m/s, then perhaps it's defined to be 0 END, like Clinging.  This is nice, as END use is per phase...so we get back into the phases vs. segments issue.  

Note that on a longer fall, if you're only falling 10 m/s, you're something of a sitting duck;  the rules about attacking a falling character still apply.  Velocity-based DCV wouldn't help much.  It'd also potentially take a rather long time.

Principally for Running and Flight, where 6E MegaScale is too much (in both cost and effect)
 

High Scale

+1/4  -- x3 NC

+1/2 -- x10 NC

+3/4 -- x30 NC

+1 -- x100 NC

High Scale DOES work with non-combat multipliers, including the baseline.  So you get a net x6 for +1/4;  net x12 if you buy a 5 point NCM and +1/4 High Scale.  It is still, of course, non-combat movement with the standard OCV and DCV adjustments.  Also, like MegaScale, you can't use High Scale to do a Move Through.  High Scale works with NCMs because you're paying for the NCM anyway, and you're not getting the massive, crazy jump you get with MegaScale.  

A similar pattern can be used for the related Mega scaling like MegaRange, but this hasn't been a concern of mine often enough.

For example:

5 SPD, 18m base flight.  x4 NCM (+5 points).  High Scale, 1m -> 10m, +1/2.  23 points with +1/2, 34 points.  Net speed:  650 mph.  Commercial jet level.

Another one is Gate.  This isn't new, so much, as repackaging a feature of Teleport.  Gate combines Constant, AoE, and some form of UOO;  the base level for "1 person at a time" should just be UBO.  You can get AoE up to 4m for +1/4, so the net here is +1.  Then, there's a mandatory limitation that it's a 2-way gate, that's -1/2.  I'd rather keep it simple, and call the entire base construction +1/2.  XDM is often conceptually similar to Teleport, so I also allow it to be expanded to that power.  

53 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

More evidence that legislation like this is authored by men who never did a day's hard physical labor in their lives. They don't understand and they don't care.

I don't disagree, but it's not the point, IMO.  They WANTED to strike these down.  It's one of those pesky anti-business rules.  That it will cost money, health, and possibly even lies, isn't an issue at all.  So, it's not that they don't understand;  it's WORSE.  They DO.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/21/1189179220/amid-a-record-heat-wave-texas-construction-workers-lose-their-right-to-rest-brea

VERY rare occurence this evening, Braves vs. Brewers.  Braves starting pitcher is a minor league call-up making his ML debut.  Does pretty good too.  BUT....

Brewers also call up a kid making HIS ML debut in this game.  Sal Frelick.  And OH MY, does he have a game!!!!!  First AB...single.  Against the other call-up.  Nice start...but it gets better.

Second AB...another single.

Third AB...another single, that drives in the kid's first ML RBI...and ties the game, in the bottom of the 5th

Top of the 6th...makes not one, but 2 excellent catches, robbiing a possible HR and a double, possibly triple.

To cap it off...as if he needs to do any more...

In his 4th AB with a runner on third, he rips a solid line drive to right.  Pretty good chance of being his 4th hit, but not quite placed for it.  Instead, it's "just* a sac fly that drives in the go ahead...and ultimately WINNING run, as no one else scores the rest of the way.  

I could go for the Washington Swamp Rats.

The cheesecake recipe I used to have was a 2-layer cake.  Bottom layer, cream cheese.  Top layer, sour cream.  Lazy me?  Toss em together and do it as one layer.

AB's recipe adds eggs and cream;  I'm fairly sure mine didn't use cream, but it probably had eggs.  Been a LONG time.  I do know I used lemon juice in it.  And this year, I've started using orange oil.  NOT extract, the orange oil itself.  Much cleaner, more honest flavor.  It should work beautifully here.  

Thing is...if you use fake sugar, this is low carb.  HIGH!!! fat, mind, but low carb.  I don't have to be nearly as fastidious about fat.   

Not disagreeing at all with what you're saying there, LW...

But just pointing out...it's a problem because of the insistence on tying it to SPD, and therefore the SPD chart.  DON'T   Define a new mechanic altogether that doesn't have the overwhelming baggage.  

RAW is not, and has never been, complete.  Not everything that you want to define is a good fit for what it has.  There are several things where trying to cram things into the existing structure is seriously wrong-minded, IMO.  The rules work well for MOST cases...but the power development model has major flaws at times.

Yeah, but we can go further.  Not only no points, but no rules at all, or just very general ones.  It's a variation on sci fi's maxim...don't even TRY to describe in detail how X works...warp drive, jump drive, transporter, FTL comms.  Hand wave?  Sure.  Dahners had a character figure out how to pull off quantum entanglement...what happens to A, immediately happens to B.  Boom...instantaneous, FTL communications between a transceiver pair, over literally ANY range.  No more detail.  No point in having more detail, it ALWAYS just leads to biting yourself in the foot.  

Note that I'll say largely the same thing about the necromantic spells.  They're points, schmoints...points don't matter.  What DOES matter?  

--what does it take to produce a ....................?  Skeletons and zombies are trivial, more powerful (and particularly semi-sentient to fully sentient undead) are something entirely different.

--special cases...if you're using anything like "someone killed by a vampire will rise as a vampire at the next sunset" then how can this be prevented?  Note that it may NOT be a power.

--how LONG does raising zombies take...cuz the PCs might want to interfere.

Where can the PCs be dynamic, in other words.

This is also a case where all you're really talking about, is a plot device...so it's not worth spending ANY points, or defining it in game terms.  This is a very common D&D situation.  The details vary greatly, but in general, properly consecrated and buried on consecrated ground, made it impossible to animate the corpse...often, only so long as the ground remained consecrated.  Now, who can consecrate the body?  That can vary.  Sometimes a devout layman is all you need.  Others, you need a full priest.  It'd be unusual, IIRC, to need something higher than 3rd level...because that's actually supposed to be Getting Up There, particularly for rural areas.  But it's manageable to do that, cuz there might be a priest who serves an area of a day's ride.

Consider:  are the PCs really going to be impacted by this at all?  Or is it just world background?  If the latter, the heck with points.  It doesn't need definition...or, at most, you say consecrating a body can be done by any appropriate priest with an X (or larger) active point MP or VPP for priestly spells.  Or something like that.  

You absolutely do NOT need to define everything in game terms, when there is no game impact.

Big breakaway day, I noticed.  The top 4 in the overall finished basically together...a full 13 minutes back.  Didn't matter;  no one in the breakaway was anywhere close for the GC.  Not surprising at all that a large breakaway was let go, cuz this is tomorrow:

The King of the Mountains is up for grabs.  Those Cat 2 climbs offer 5-3-2-1 points;  the Cat 1's offer 10-8-6-4-2-1.  Ciccone leads with 88, Gall's big win saw him shoot up to 82.  Vingegaard has 81.  Drops down to Powless at 58, which is a lot of ground to try to make up.  I doubt Vingegaard will push to grab points on the first 4 climbs, but he could make a move on the first Cat 1 or, quite likely, the second one.  BUT, the yellow's sitting there waiting for him now, so he may just let a small breakaway take the points...and only drop the hammer to ice Pogacar.

The green jersey is, I think, decided.  Pretty sure there aren't enough points left for anyone to catch Philipsen, and I believe I saw that you don't have to finish the entire race, to win the points competition.

Pogacar has the white jersey pretty much sewn up;  he's got 4 minutes on Rodriguez Cano.

Jumbo-Visma has the team competition in the bag...over 27 minutes ahead there.

So tomorrow's pretty much KoM, and get ready to cruise into Paris.

50 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Yeah, Commanders is a stupid name. 

 

BREAKING: Washington Commanders Expected To Undergo Another Name Change After NFL Owners Approve Sale Of Team To Josh Harris

 

Don Van Natta Jr. of ESPN said he "would not be surprised at all if we see a name change and a complete rebranding". Might that include a change in (for example) team colors? How extensive a rebranding are we talking about?

Yeah, I posted that too, but calling it "expected" is atrocious clickbait.  It makes very good sense, but the ONLY "source" for this is a writer, and he only said "would not be surprised."  How the bloody heck does that become "expected"? They're trying to create news, when there's nothing there.  Right...that's a web site to toss to the side forever..........  

Yeah, Danny was a very, very bad boy.  There's a story here:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10083427-commanders-rumors-pretty-good-chance-team-will-change-name-after-dan-snyder-sale

During Snyder's tenure, the Commanders had more serious investigations...federal, NFL, attorney general...than playoff berths.  They had more of each type of investigation than All-Pros.

Don Van Natta opines that the new owners, who should be in place fairly soon now, might well want to change the name again, just to wash away as much of the Snyder slime as they can.  I don't know if that's possible for this season;  it seems reasonable to say the league needs some notice, and the season starts in, what, 6 or 7 weeks.  That might be a bit short for the league PR machine.  

Granted...but I'm questioning, and I'll grant I'm not sure, if the fact that it IS a pardon, which has almost complete leeway, invalidates the notion of bribery...at least on Trump's side.  If it was practically anything but a pardon, then, yes, it's bribery.  Something to note:  is a pardon an objective decision in the first place?  Take a weird, TV drama case...the president's kid gets into a fight at college, goes away, then comes back to shoot up the scene and kill 4 people.  Everything is in place for the death penalty, and there's NO reason for clemency.  The president pardons his kid.  Game over.  

This is completely within the scope of his powers.  If something like this is an acceptable use, then what isn't?  If Trump gets re-elected, he may well pardon anyone left in jail for Jan. 6th convictions, even those for sedition.  How is that an objective decision?

Secondary, from the article I posted:  the courts may well not want to become involved in a bribery case that is about a pardon, because of that degree of freedom.  Trump is going to claim executive privilege, and that will also be a tough shield to crack.

There is a part of the Brookings article worth noting, highlights mine:
 

Quote

One of the most disturbing aspects of the president’s broad power to pardon is that it apparently empowers the president to conspire with others to commit crimes that personally profit him or serve to maintain him illegally in office, since he can assure those who aid in these endeavors that if their perfidy is discovered, he will pardon them for the crimes they have committed. Surely, one might think, the framers did not intend for the pardon power to extend this far. It appears, however, that the drafters of the pardon clause recognized this danger, but did not act to prevent it. The issue was raised during the discussion of the pardon power at the constitutional convention when it was proposed that the president’s power to pardon be restricted not just for impeachments but also when treason was charged. George Mason, in language that seems to anticipate what some think is true of some Trump pardons, argued in favor of the addition: “The President of the United States has the unrestricted power of granting pardons for treason; which may sometimes be exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime and thereby prevent the discovery of his own guilt.” George Iredell argued against Mason’s position as unduly weakening the executive when the chance of a president committing treason against his country was “very slight” and suggested that no man honored by his country by being elected president would risk “the damnation of his fame to all future ages.”

In other words, they failed to anticipate how badly warped the political system might become.  (Which, BTW, also is a massive argument against the literal interpretation of the Constitution so heavily used by the conservative Justices.)

So if this is the case, again...is any court going to consider prosecuting a bribe related to a *pardon*?  MUCH LESS, of course, THIS Supreme Court.  There is no doubt in my mind that even should a lower court convict, it would never be upheld by the Supreme Court as it would stand now.

Offering the inducement is separate from charging Trump with accepting a bribe...because it was a pardon/commutation.  Found this page:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump/

It doesn't discuss the issue of whether bribery can be committed, but it does lay out that the limitations are pretty much on what can be pardoned...and those limits are narrow.  The story also points out that the courts are not at all likely to want to take up the question.