JamesG

I know that it normally takes an Attack Action to activate a Darkness field, since you need to make an attack roll to hit the hex you want your Darkness to be centered on. But what about ‘no range’ Darkness fields that “stick†to the character generating the Darkness. It seems that activating Darkness like this is more akin to turning on a Force Field than making an attack. So can a character “turn on†Darkness like this as a 0-phase action, or must they still use a full Attack Action to activate their Darkness? Thank you.

Re: Entangling giants Since the rules very specifically say that Growth Momentum can be used to break Entangles (page 168 in Revised) I would not allow flexible Entangles to be immune to it. Justification is easy, the target simply grew too much, too fast for the Entangle to "keep up" and it "rips". Though the flexible, adhesive Entangles will keep a shrinker from just shrinking out of it the way they would a net, so there is still some benefit to that sfx. Sounds a lot like Marvel Comics' "unstable molecules".

Re: Entangling giants BTW, if nobody has mentioned it yet, the current issue of Digital Hero (DH #35) talks about this very topic in Mr. Long's HEROglyphs column. In brief, the article discusses an optional rule that allows large targets a STR bonus to break out of Entangles that are too small to cover them, and the bigger the target the bigger the bonus. It also adds an "effects large targets" advantage so that an entangle can effect larger targets normally. The cost of the advantage depends on just how big a target the entangle can effect.

Re: Entangling giants I'd have them use their Str PLUS Growth Momentum damage to break the Entangle. If that wasn't enough to break it, what happens next depends on the spec effects of the ENT. If it is a "stretchy" ENT, I'd rule the ENT just stretched with the char. They now are much bigger, but still entangled. If it is a "rigid" ENT, I'd apply the damage they rolled vs the ENT to the character (vs PD) and rule the char was "forced" back to their normal sized form since they were prevented from growing by the ENT.

Re: Hit from behind Now, I do agree that there should be some benefit to attacking "from behind", even if the target knows you are there, which is why I like prestidigitator's +2/+1 for behind/flank attacks. Here is the way I would handle it. If a character is engaged in one on one combat, he won't normally get attacked "from behind", he can automatically rotate to track someone trying to run around behind him. If for some reason he does not want to rotate to track, say he needs to keep an eye on something in front of him, then an attacker could get either the +2 or +1 OCV bonus for behind/flank attacks if they move appropriately. Or if he is surrounded by multiple foes, some of them will get either flank or behind attacks at +1 or +2 OCV. (Plus possibly a multiple attackers bonus). And if the character is attacked by an assassin who successfully used stealth to sneak up behind him, he is "surprised" and at 1/2 DCV vs. the assassin.

Re: Two weapon fighting in HtH and Ranged Well, you can't buy PSLs with Sweep. This from the old FAQ: Note that Revised has the same rule, but doesn't specifically mention Sweep which is why I quoted the old FAQ. But since you can buy two 2-pnt CSLs with Sweep for 4 points, your basic point stands. There have been numerous threads on this topic, and Revised and several Genre books suggest various ways to give TWF a little boost to justify its 10 point cost in games where the optional Sweep Maneuver is allowed. In campaigns where the GM normally disallows Sweep, then TWF is probably worth its cost even without a boost.

Re: Deduction

Re: How to handle RKA? I’ve tried to convince my group to adopt a rule that dramatically reduces the stun done by Killing Attacks if no Body gets through resistant defenses. They didn’t go for it, “too complicated†was the main complaint. The funny thing is, it’s my PC that most commonly uses a Killing Attack (he’s a swordsman with a mystical sword). So I was really proposing a rule that mostly limits my own PC. Actually I suspect some GMs (we rotate GMs, all the players GM from time to time) use my PC as a crutch. If they design a villain that’s too tough, they can count on my PC eventually doing monster stun, allowing the hero team to win.

Re: Anyone get DC: TAS yet? Maybe they lost it. Have you tried resubmitting it? (Not to be a pest, but I like reading your reviews).

Re: Anyone get DC: TAS yet? Is the review up yet? I've been watching out for it, but have not seen it.

Re: Anyone get DC: TAS yet? I flipped through a copy of DC:TAS at a FLGS today. I figured the art could not possibly be as bad as implied in this thread. My god, if anything, it was worse. Much of it looked like unfinished sketches. There were a few nice pieces, like Greg Smith’s contributions, but for the most part it was horrendous. I can understand why they chose not to include any art, other than the cover, in the online store’s PDF preview. If this is the best quality they can muster, I really think Hero Games needs to rethink their publishing schedule and/or philosophy. Maybe pruning a few titles off the schedule each year would be prudent, so that more care could be taken with what is released. It really pains me to say this, since I’ve been an ardent supporter of DOJ since they took over. But the look of this book was just terribly, terribly disappointing. So that I don’t come across as all negative, I have to say that Samurai007’s artwork (at http://photobucket.com/albums/v11/Tommiskey/Art/ for those who missed it up-thread) is quite good, and I for one would welcome it in future Hero Games products. Too bad he wasn’t used for DC:TAS.

Re: Zombie Hero: Group 2 The Oakdale Galleria I was glad to see the Oakdale posts updated Nexus, keep up the good work! Hope that's Jericho (aka 'Batman') AJ saw sneaking around, I was worried the rent-a-cops blasted him.

Re: Viperia: Less Pow Than Champions??

Hi Steve, Your answer about Teleportation and the ‘Cannot be escaped with Teleportation’ advantage for Entangles has me thinking about Entangles and Flight. By default, if someone with Flight is Entangled, can they fly away while still Entangled? In the same sense that someone Entangled with a ‘Cannot be escaped with Teleportation’ Entangle can ‘port away, but still be Entangled at the end of the ‘port. For the sake of this question, assume the Flight is not ‘restrainable’ or anything like that. It’s ‘force of will’ flight like Superman’s or Green Lantern’s. Thanks.

I have a question about the “Cannot be escaped with Teleportation†(CbEwT) advantage for Entangles. Assuming an Entangle with no other advantages/adders besides CbEwT, is the entangled teleporter prevented from teleporting at all, or can he ‘port but is still entangled when he gets where he is ‘porting to. Assume the teleportation power does not have gestures or restrainable or anything similar that would mean the ‘porter can’t activate the power at all when entangled.

Re: IST San Angelo version 2.0 Cheer up then !

Re: IST San Angelo version 2.0

Re: Issues with when CSL and maneuver bonuses end You're the second person who said something about lower SPEED, even though my post had nothing to do with a SPEED difference. In fact the example explicitly stated the characters had the same SPEED. I totally agree that a low SPEED character has enough problems that any minor advantage is not worth worrying about. Others have commented on the advantages of high DEX, which is also somewhat beside the point. Part of this is my fault; I shouldn't have used LowDex/HighDex as my examples, when the issue really is with initiative (DEX + Lightning Reflexes). The higher initiative character may or may not have a higher DEX. I alluded to this with ModerateDexWithLotsOfLighningReflexesMan but I should have been more clear. Of course, that would have made the post even longer. I guess to summarize, my "issue" was that, due to when maneuver/CSL bonuses are defined as ending, a lower initiative character had available a tactic, the CV flip-flip, that was unavailable to a higher initiative character. Acknowledged, this isn't a major issue, and any 'solution' I came up with was worse than the problem. You know, looking at it this way, it does alleviate my concerns about how that tactic is meta-gaming. Now if I can just get the players to say it that way instead of saying “I hold until his phase starts.†Of course getting players to avoid gamespeak when describing their actions is a whole problem unto itself, outside the scope of this discussion.

I’ve been thinking about how the bonuses (or penalties) to OCV/DCV granted by combat skill levels or maneuvers last until the start of the character’s next phase. Barring an Abort of course, which cancels out any prior maneuver bonuses/penalties and replaces them with those generated by the aborted to maneuver and allows for the reassignment of CSLs. So if a Speed 6, DEX 20 character Martial Dodges and puts two All Combat skill levels into DCV on segment 2, he will be +7 to his DCV until DEX 20 of segment 4. At least this is my understanding of the rules in FRED and the old FAQ. I don’t have Revised, so if anything has changed there regarding this, please set me straight. The potential issue I have with this is it allows a lower DEX character to gain a major tactical advantage over a higher DEX character by doing a CV flip-flop. For instance, suppose HighDexMan attacks LowDexMan in segment two (assume both are Speed 6). LowDexMan aborts to Dodge and puts his CSLs into DCV. In segment four, if HighDexMan attacks on his DEX, LowDexMan still has the DCV benefit from his segment two action. Then on LowDexMan’s DEX, he can ‘flip’ all his CSLs to OCV and attack with a high OCV maneuver. HighDexMan can’t abort to a defensive posture since he already acted that segment, and LowDexMan knows he can abort to a defensive posture by the time HighDexMan can attack again. Now, HighDexMan can always hold his action until LowDexMan’s phase comes up, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having the higher initiative. And then he needs to win a contest of DEX rolls in order to act first. And if instead of HighDexMan, he’s ModerateDexWithLotsOfLighningReflexesMan he’ll probably lose that contest. Lastly, holding like this is entirely meta-game, as it’s not based on holding for an in game event, it’s holding until a game mechanic kicks in. My first thought was to change it so the CSL/Maneuver mods end at the beginning of the segment in which the character has his next phase. But this seemed too harsh on low DEX characters. I was then considering a system whereby if you used any CSLs or Maneuver bonuses to DCV in a segment that you had a phase coming up later, when your phase did come up you would be locked into keeping a DCV bonus of least the same value. While that would work OK for CSLs, it would get a little hairier with Maneuver bonuses. The additional complexity and memory requirements also made this solution less than ideal. I thought about simply allowing a character holding their action until the beginning of a lower DEX character’s phase to automatically win the DEX roll-off. But, like having the bonuses end at the beginning of the segment, that might be too much of a penalty for the lower DEX character. So I’m all the way back to the “by the book†method of allowing HighDexMan to hold until LowDexMan’s phase if he wants to avoid a CV flip-flop, and then the two characters would DEX roll-off to determine who goes first. I would clarify that the roll-off occurs before any actions are declared, so neither the winner nor loser of the roll-off is locked into any course of action. I’d also allow any applicable levels of Lightning Reflexes to function as a bonus to the roll. This type of holding still has the meta-gaming issue, but it seems the most fair and playable. Wow, that was a long post just to get back to basically what the book says. My questions for community are: 1) Have you had a problem with players doing the CV flip flop, or am I making much ado about nothing? 2) If you have experienced the problem, any particularly elegant solutions I’m missing? Thanks.

Re: IST San Angelo version 2.0 If anybody seriously finds some of my pics too over the top, please let me know either via posting here or PMing me. If there is enough demand, I'll edit them out. My aim is to entertain, not to offend.

Re: IST San Angelo version 2.0 Is it OK then to derail the thread with pics of women as long as they are wearing WHITE gloves?

Re: Meta-game activities I like this idea except I think the Teamwork skill should play into it. Maybe all the characters involved need to have the Teamwork skill, the 'instructing' player needs to make a Tactics roll (with Teamwork being complimentary) and the player(s) following the instructions need to make a Teamwork roll to follow correctly. Using your example, the Tactics roll means the tactician realizes that "Maneuver Omega-13" would be a good move, and the Teamwork roll by his teamates means they remember what ""Maneuver Omega-13" is.

Re: IST San Angelo version 2.0 Hmm, that's a tough one. Couldn't find anything EXACTLY like the description. Here's the best I could do.

Re: IST San Angelo version 2.0 I think you might want to broaden your horizens to include colors other than white.

Your answer to a recent Drain question indicated that each Drain, even from the same attacker, recovers separately. So if The Leecher hits Heroboy with his STR Drain four times over the course of the Turn, Heroboy recovers 20 STR in post segment 12. (Assuming no delayed return rate, and standard recovery method). Does the same apply to positive Adjustment powers? For example, Boosterman has Absorption (Energy Damage to Stun), and is hit four times with Blastergirl’s EB over the course of the turn, absorbing 32 Stun points. In post segment 12, does Boosterman lose 20 of his absorbed Stun, or 5? (Still assuming no delayed return rate and standard method). Thanks.