unclevlad

A couple more...
DCs in an attack.  This is significantly separate from character points.
Max DCs, as well as how often the GM will throw KAs out there against the players.  This has a major influence on how invest in defenses.  
And we've talked about it here, but it's still perhaps something of a fringe notion/consideration...SPDs.  
 

On this day, 22 years ago....the world changed.
 
Never forget.
 
Even if you can hardly believe it's been 22 years.  I know I can't.

On this day, 22 years ago....the world changed.
 
Never forget.
 
Even if you can hardly believe it's been 22 years.  I know I can't.

But we can't celebrate the victors.  I mean....man...Texas football is THE MOST obnoxious program in all of college sports.  
 
New aphorism for the modern sports fan.
 
To err is human.  To really foul things up requires replay.
 
No, it's not tied to any specific call from today, it just bounced thru my head on its own just now.

Yeah, you may be right there.  If you want supers only 6E rules, focus on Champions Complete, for example.  It's about 240 pages.  It might be TOO terse, but 6E1 is often far too verbose.  Adjustment powers general discussion..CC, a bit over 2 pages.  6E1...it's 9 pages.  CC's Absorption doesn't include the Limited Phenomena limitation...which is probably fine because it's not worth taking most of the time...in supers.  In CC, Flight doesn't include Usable as Second Form of Movement...this is most commonly used to fly underwater, I think, and with supers, that's largely a given.
 
Perhaps one of the bigger problems with 6E's size is the decision to incorporate so much material from, it looks like, the rules forum.  For example, Flight has a paragraph of discussion on IPE.  You ask, huh??  Flight can't be hidden.  It's talking about the Flight Only in Contact, and doing things like leaving no tracks.  I get it, but it's very much a fringe aspect.  The section on Only in Contact is far more verbose as well, answering what should be common-sense points...no, you can't stand atop the water, you have to be *moving*...that sort of thing.  I do get, tho, that the worst oxymoron in the English language is common sense...but including this stuff is a big reason why 6E1 is so bloody big.
 
 

Android isn't Linux per se.
 
Try Google searches.  I'm not being a jerk here, the answer looks to be Not Simple.  The easiest route appears to be through Android Studio...but that's for programming, which suggests it's well beyond most users.  I see some other paths involving rooting your tablet...but that's even more advanced.  And risky.
 
This looks to be a good start...
https://developer.android.com/build/jdks
 
 
 
Instead of re

Moving from 6E to 5E is often easy, altho 6E has numerous aspects that 5E doesn't.  If you're using prebuilt characters, too...most I've seen have been quite straightforward.
 
Moving from 5E to 6E...are you counting points or not?  Figured characteristics is a BIG factor.  
 
Push comes to shove, tho, yeah, since villains are usually around for only a session or two, then it probably won't matter.  But the build styles each supports best, are QUITE different.  If you care about efficiency, that is.
 
The biggest 2 issues in 6E, IMO:
--poor organization and editing.  It's overly verbose in too many places, and repeats itself too often.
--It tries to be universal...all levels, all genres.  There's far too much marginal material that shouldn't *be* in the core rules.
 
The divisions between what's in V1 and V2 are also problematic.  I need to go to V2 for range mods?  That's a significant factor for how one builds a ranged combat specialist.  
 
The sheer size also makes finding anything a royal PITA.  Whether you have the physical book or the ebook, looking up any detail...and we darn sure can't track all of em...takes longer than it needs to.  

Moving from 6E to 5E is often easy, altho 6E has numerous aspects that 5E doesn't.  If you're using prebuilt characters, too...most I've seen have been quite straightforward.
 
Moving from 5E to 6E...are you counting points or not?  Figured characteristics is a BIG factor.  
 
Push comes to shove, tho, yeah, since villains are usually around for only a session or two, then it probably won't matter.  But the build styles each supports best, are QUITE different.  If you care about efficiency, that is.
 
The biggest 2 issues in 6E, IMO:
--poor organization and editing.  It's overly verbose in too many places, and repeats itself too often.
--It tries to be universal...all levels, all genres.  There's far too much marginal material that shouldn't *be* in the core rules.
 
The divisions between what's in V1 and V2 are also problematic.  I need to go to V2 for range mods?  That's a significant factor for how one builds a ranged combat specialist.  
 
The sheer size also makes finding anything a royal PITA.  Whether you have the physical book or the ebook, looking up any detail...and we darn sure can't track all of em...takes longer than it needs to.  

See, that's the glass half full view.
The flip side is, the attempts that have been prevented, have only been the most egregious ones, I believe.  If there is a line in the sand...every suggestion so far is, it's getting much too close to the totalitarian side for comfort.
 
EDIT:  also, these are temporary victories.  One of the massive issues is the effort to recast the education system in the image they prefer, which offers potential long term gains.  They're trying to make sure their current advantages become unassailable, and every form of opposition becomes neutralized...or severely stigmatized/demonized.  Control the schools, you control the minds.  Control the minds, you've won.

Also, adjusting Tunneling to work the way you want, is a mess.  
 
 
You can if you want...but there is an explicit Selective Desolid advantage in 6E.  It's +1 1/2, and its entire purpose is to waive Affects Physical World across the board.  That's WAY too much free for me.
 
Desolid is simply a MESS.  It's a great example of why massive power offset by massive limits DOES NOT WORK in most cases...particularly when you try to bypass some or all of that massive power.  Any attempt to adjust things breaks down.  Any time you think you need to make massive changes?  That's a big STOP! sign in my book...the baseline effect is WRONG.  Given, as Hugh points out, that Desolid has 3 separate near-absolutes...pass through anything, can't be affected by anything, can't affect anything...it's HARD!!! to adjust one independent of the others.  I'm OK with Affects Phys World because it's a full +2...and it's on every power where you want to use it.  This has huge ripple effects.  Want it in an MP?  The reserve size skyrockets, the slot costs go up, the END costs become HUGE.  I'm NOT all that fond of Selective Desolid.  It's often cheaper, it's a blanket cheat, the END issue can be trivialized CHEAP...Costs END only to activate...which, gee, you do on 12, right?  Granted that it's on 40 base points, so there are builds where APW is cheaper.  This is the easiest of the 3 to address.  
 
So...IMO, if you're gonna try removing ANY ONE of the 3...then do not use Desolid as a basis.  Use APG's alternate desolid.  Or better yet, build your own power that does what YOU want...without the absolutes that break the underlying system.
 
 

I refuse to contemplate any hypothetical that gives that moron that much success.

Along these lines, should there ever be another edition of the rules, then I'd suggest streamlining all this.
a)  1 DC --> +1 pip
b)  2 DCs --> ONE OF (2 pips, 1/2 d6, +d6-1).  The only one I really don't like is the 1/2 d6.  I'd prefer to avoid half dice when possible.  I don't have a strong favorite between 2 pips and d6-1;  overall it makes little difference.  2 pips is simpler and cleaner;  it's a bit less effective, but hey, it's also guaranteed, where d6-1 isn't.
 
But just use one of them ALL the time.

Women's tennis routinely sees major upsets and shifts in the rankings.  #3 Pegula lost today, dropping her to #4 currently...both Gauff and Vondrousova can pass Pegula.  
 
Upsets hit the men early...Rune lost first round, Tsitsipas and Ruud 2nd round.  They started the event at 4, 5, and 7 in the rankings.
 
On the up side, Ben Shelton's a 20 year old American who started the year just inside the top 100;  he only turned pro last year.  QF at the Aussie Open took him from 89 to 44.  Bits and pieces here and there, kind of a mixed bag for the summer...but another run to the QF of the US Open has jumped him again, from 47 to 27.  It also means he sits 4th in the ATP Next Generation standings, the season-ending 'championship' event for players 21 and under.  Which is effectively #2...because #1 is Alcaraz and #2 is Rune.  They'll skip that, to play the ATP Finals the next week.  And, if he can stay in the top 32 going into and through the Aussie...the Sunshine Double, Indian Wells and Miami, both expanded to 96 entries (rather than 64) and thus 32 seeds.  So, he gets a seed, and is guaranteed to play a non-seed in the 2nd round, after the bye.  

The pulled pork came out exceptionally well.  Found a yellow BBQ sauce for it...mustard, vinegar, plus bits of this and that to taste...and it's an excellent touch.
 
Huh...there's a potential soon-to-be conference matchup coming up....Wash St at Colo St...how amusing...

High attack, low defense is called a glass cannon.  One hit, dropped!  But how often can/should the GM target him to be dropped?  Actually, quite a bit!  If he's much more effective, then NOT targeting him is stupid.  
 
Auto rifles doing AP killing?  Recognize these are murderous.  Nothing less.  Unless you're talking SERIOUSLY high powered.  If I have to worry about it?  It'll sharply re-shape my defenses.  3d6 killing?  I'd better have 11-12 resistant, if I don't wanna get TOO mauled.  AP?  I'd better have MOST of that *hardened*.  Make it autofire, and ok, 2 hits might not be too likely...but it'll happen often enough.  Now I gotta face a bad damage roll *twice*.
 
Killing attacks are a classic example why your concept breaks down.  Killing attacks are MASSIVELY variable.  Sure, much of the time...they're useless.  They do nothing, assuming appropriate rDEF.  But that's not the risk, from the PCs' perspective.  They have to be concerned with the HIGH damage rolls.  8d6 K isn't a 24 DC attack, from a risk mitigation perspective.  Ask yourself, what would you rather face?
 
--8d6 killing in 5E (with the ugly d6-1 stun mult)
--24d6 normal
--30d6 normal
 
It's LESS bad in 6E.  The stun mult *had* to be reduced, IMO.  But still...8d6 killing requires at least mid-20s rDEF;  you need 28 to bounce the average BODY.  34+ will happen about 13%.
 
But there's also a recognition...even in VERY HIGH powered supers, 24 DC attacks are huge.  24 DCs is 120 active...if it's full END, more if it's got Reduced END...which is the upper limit for Very High Powered supers (6E1 35).  24 DCs normal does 84 STUN...so what kinda defenses are needed?
 
  
 

Yep.  There's nothing new there, it's all as expected...except the 3 month cycle time, as generally going into and coming out are the risky periods.
 
The one thing you may need is the time from the start of the wake cycle, until the person is fully functional again.  Not necessarily just awake...some writers have had the coldsleep leave a 'hangover' of sorts.  Warming the body can't be done in just a few moments.  

Just a passing thought...yeah, the four above weren't claimed by anyone.
 
Talk about a feeling of rejection............
 
And I think most of them were gonna be free agents.  Don't get your hopes up for a big offseason contract...........

The Trumpists wouldn't listen if God Himself spoke to them. 
And, yes, if someone showed me plausible evidence...I'd believe Trump was, indeed, the Antichrist of Revelations.  

Plus, it totally smacks of a limitation designed to squeeze point costs down to me, since it *is* misdirected when you say it's UOO.  Grantor would be the person forced to concentrate...not recipient.  
 
CRT:  if you were actually aware for the whole time, it'd be like being in a sensory deprivation chamber.  Long term, that isn't a great idea.

I'd just keep it simple.  Character does not eat, self contained breathing, character does not age.  I don't think you need anything else, functionally.  Then:  no conscious control..the *character* can't turn it OFF.
 
If it's defined as part of a ship?  No Conscious doesn't apply, but you're spending base points.
 
Either way, there's Immobile Focus aspects if you want them, too, but that LS isn't exactly expensive, particularly as part of a vehicle build.
 
There's no need for any Transform that I can see.  That's just SFX explanation stuff.  

I'd just keep it simple.  Character does not eat, self contained breathing, character does not age.  I don't think you need anything else, functionally.  Then:  no conscious control..the *character* can't turn it OFF.
 
If it's defined as part of a ship?  No Conscious doesn't apply, but you're spending base points.
 
Either way, there's Immobile Focus aspects if you want them, too, but that LS isn't exactly expensive, particularly as part of a vehicle build.
 
There's no need for any Transform that I can see.  That's just SFX explanation stuff.  

https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706

It's enough on offense.  it's not enough pitching.
 
Another aspect here.  The aircraft carriers are priced at their maximum production.  There's no, or very little, upside that's even possible.  In a capped marketplace, even if it's loosely capped, you need players giving MORE than what you priced in.  That's a big reason why rookie contracts are so incredibly valuable.

Solid but not spectacular == .500 ball club and no playoffs.
 
How often do those big contracts actually play to their cost...and for how long?  Yeah, if they do, that's one thing.  Another aspect with, say, the Yankees of the last several years is IMO roster mis-construction.  Too many all-or-nothing types.  With the Yankees as well, all-or-nothing hitters that were substandard on defense.  The Yankees recognized that last year, and took steps to address the defensive issues, for sure.  
 
Also, note that if Rendon and Trout aren't $20M...they're $35M.  IF they can re-sign Ohtani, even as a hitter only?  We're talking $40-45M...might be more, but that'd just make the case stronger.  So, we're talking 3 players, $110M, and about 50% of the salary cap.  IF they play that way, then they'd have to be brilliant...because the pitching staff will be badly underfunded.
 
Another point:  the Angels put those players on waivers to dump salary, hopefully.  Why?  Not so much to cut expenses this year, but to get under the competitive balance tax...if someone picks them up, then the remaining salary is their problem.  The CBT starts at $233M.  If they lose Ohtani, their compensation pick improves significantly...from post-4th round to post-2nd round.
 
If the Angels accede to Ohtani pitching...and try to get 150 innings a year out of him?  Assuming he doesn't have to have the 2nd TJ to try it...there's only a *slim* chance he'd last 2 years, I think.  Not with the repeat damage.  If he's got to have the TJ now, the first question is whether he *can* pitch again effectively.  History shows, this simply isn't very likely.
 
EDIT:  watching Angels-Phillies, actually, on MLB.  Bottom Line point about the D'backs-Dodgers game, in LA...the D'backs are 7-33 in the last 40 games in Dodger Stadium.   Owwwww.....
 
 

"It's too late to complain about the food now."