Steve Long

See 6E1 268.

That's up to the GM, and may depend in part on the type of VPP involved. Personally, I would probably allow it, but another GM might feel differently. For example, I could envision a Fantasy Hero game with a magic system where wizards get VPPs, but require a lot of time to change them (thus giving spellcasters flexibility without making them unbalancingly powerful). In that case taking 1 Day to change the VPP might be the campaign ground rule, and thus not worth a Limitation.

See 6E1 153.

That’s not legal. If a character wants to reduce another character into the negative of a Characteristic (or Characteristics), typically he uses Drain; in some cases Transform may also be an appropriate way to do this.

Automatons (such as zombies) are typically bought as Followers when a character wants to have them around more or less permanently. But for situations where the Automaton is only intended as a short-term creation or the like, Summon is the Power commonly used to "bring them to life." As you noted, 6E1 specifically mentions this, and there are plenty of examples of undead creation spells and the like in published material. The ability you describe seems like a textbook example of this use of Summon.

Ultimately that's up to the GM, of course, but if I were writing that character up for a Hero Games book, I would build that power with OAF (if the character needs a specific teddy bear) or OIF (if the character needs any teddy bear). Sounds like a good topic for a post in the Discussion forum, if you haven't already posted it there.

That's correct. As noted on 6E1 354, the power isn't "turned on" when given to the Recipient, and he's subject to all Limitations on the power.

The power "sticks" to the target because the rules for UAA (6E1 359) specify that UAA works like that if you want it to. There's no "realistic" rationale or logic to it per se; that's just how the HERO System rules let you do this particular thing. Though your way of doing it in your campaign as GM works just fine too.

What I meant by "takes full effect" is "all increments of damage have accrued" (as shown in your first example). That seemed to make things easiest on the GM while maintaining some level of dramatic realism. If you think it's taking too long, or you prefer some other arrangement, by all means go for it. That might make things a little more tense in some campaigns or situations, providing some added excitement.

For Deflection, if a character Blocks multiple attacks, the END cost for Deflection is paid once for an entire sequence of Blocks. He does not have to pay the END cost for each attack Deflected. Once a character misses a Block, or stops Blocking voluntarily, the next use of Deflection costs END, because it’s a new use. If a character takes regular Charges for Deflection, each Deflected attack uses up 1 Charge. Continuing Charges are discussed on 6E1 188. For Reflection, see 6E1 272.

I didn't build them using Detect. If memory serves, I determined those costs by calculating what the absence of each one would be worth as a Physical Complication. Then, once I had the costs and listed them, characters could just sell back the Senses (as discussed on 6E1 209) rather than take a Physical Complication, if they wanted to lack one.

No, there's not. In fact, given your description that the second attack always hits if the first one does, Linked is really the best way to go -- you have no guarantee of a second hit with Autofire or other methods.

APG2 43 says: “Characters generally cannot Aid naked Advantages, because there’s usually no way to “improve” them (aside perhaps from increasing the Active Points they can apply to). The GM can allow this if he wants to, but if so he should determine how Aid applies.” So I’ll leave the specifics you describe to the wise and knowledgeable GM.

First, it’s not legal for a character to apply the Always On Limitation to a Characteristic, absent specific circumstances where the GM approves it. A character’s Characteristics are essentially always available to him, given the way they work in the game, and they don’t get a Limitation for this. For Always On to apply, being unable to turn off the power has to hinder or restrict the character in some way. Unless that’s the case — and I can’t see how it does in this case (though of course you may not have needed to supply every detail about that power). Since you’re the GM, it’s up to you to decide if the Limitation is valid. Second, I don't necessarily think you're too giving. It sounds to me like you've given this some serious thought and made what you think is the best decision to ensure game balance while allowing the player to have fun with his character's concept. Third, since the Greater Power in a Linked can function on its own, it doesn't matter if the Lesser Power is reduced in strength (for whatever reason). The proportionality rules for Linked (see 6E1 385) don't apply because they only govern what happens when the Greater Power is used at less than full strength. So even if circumstances reduce a Lesser Power (in this case due to the Limitation regarding solar radiation), the Greater Power can still function at full strength. I think that addresses all the issues you raise, but if I missed something, please post another question or PM me.

Applying multiple Limitations to a power that way isn't necessarily illegal, though some GMs might consider it "double-dipping" and forbid it. But in any event, that approach is probably more complexity (and more text on the character sheet) than you need. I would suggest coming up with one Limitation -- let's call it Dependent On Solar Radiation for the sake of discussion -- assign it an appropriate value (probably -1/4 based on what you're telling me, but given the nature of your campaign maybe -1/2), and then make a note on the character sheet of all the rules/guidelines that apply to the Limitation (just like you did in your question). That avoids the potential problems of "two Limitations covering the same thing.

See 6E1 234, "Healing Inanimate Beings And Nonliving Objects." You might also want to check TUV 26 under "Healing." I think that's about all that needs to be said on the subject, but to the extent that still leaves you with questions, I think they probably fall into the realm of the GM's discretion.

That's entirely up to the GM. Some GMs are pretty forgiving about this, others are tough. Some may require you to justify your definitions. For example, in my campaign, I'd want a "reasonable" (within genre conventions and definitions ) explanation of how your Trigger could determine who's an enemy/ally and who's not. But personally, I wouldn't consider either of your example Triggers as being invalid per se.

See the text box on 6E2 25. Basically, it's (((meters moved x Phases per Turn) x5 ) x60 ) / 1609.

That's up to the GM -- both what defense is involved (though published books, particularly The Ultimate Energy Projector, provide a lot of guidance on that issue) and whether Damage Negation applies. Nothing in the rules on 6E1 183 restricts Damage Negation to only certain special effects of AVADs, so I suspect most GMs will rule in favor of the Power applying to the sort of AVADs you suggest. Others may want a more nuanced approach, or may come up with more specific house rules for their campaigns.

Fully delving into this issue is a subject that will have to wait for The Ultimate Gadgeteer, or perhaps I can integrate it into APG3 (which I’m currently working on). In the meantime, to keep things simple, here’s are some basic rules: Since Computers don’t have STUN, technically speaking they can’t be Stunned or Knocked Out. (If built as a Focus, or with a similar special effect, they can of course be broken in various ways, and thus rendered inoperable.) If a Computer is part of a character’s build and not a Focus — for example, it represents a second head, or an integral part of a robot’s body — it’s up to the GM to decide what happens to it in combat conditions. A Computer that represents, for example, an ettin’s second head should probably be Stunned or Knocked Out if the ettin himself suffers those conditions. One that’s part of a robot might suffer the same fate, or might remain operable and able to perform any functions it’s programmed to. The GM should consider the Computer’s programming as well as common sense, dramatic sense, and game balance sense in making his decision.

See TUV 15-16 re: the possibility of making a Vehicle sentient. If the GM prefers not to use those rules, just build the Vehicle an AI Computer and define the computer's special effect as "this vehicle is sentient."

First, sorry I somehow missed this question last week. 1, 4. That depends on special effects. The classic sort of comic book Stretching used by characters like Mr. Fantastic, the Elongated Man, and Plastic Man allows for a high degree of malleability (but also usually requires the character to buy the ability to alter his bodily dimensions). On the other hand, Stretching used to define the length of a polearm isn’t malleable at all, and a robotic arm servo that can lengthen might or might not be malleable. Lack of malleability does not qualify as a Limitation. 2-3. Within the context of the HERO System rules, the Head is considered a limb (see, e.g., the rules for Grab). See APG 117 re: Stretching the head and sensory organs.

First off, thanks for explaining your question in such detail. That's a big help. 6E1 447 shows how each of the Talents was built. As you can see from its build there, it has both the Hardened and Impenetrable Advantages. So it retains all the functionality it had in the 5th Edition rules in the 6th Edition rules. I simply forgot to mention Impenetrable on 6E1 110, but I will now include that in the errata.

No.

Good question! That should be defined by the GM and player in advance. There's no checklist or anything like that in the HERO System rules to determine if an attack is Physical or Energy. In most cases it's pretty obvious, but in others -- such as this case -- you have to make a decision. One other resource you can use is The Ultimate Energy Projector. It has a sidebar next to each of the 32 special effects it covers indicating whether PD, ED, or in some cases both (e.g., Ice/Cold) is the proper defense. When there's no specific entry for the special effect you're looking for, use the nearest equivalent as a guideline. In this case, there's no listing for "Rot Powers." But there is one for Biological Powers, which are defined as working against PD. Depending on the nature of this rotting power, you might also look at Holy/Unholy (which work against ED), Life Force Energy (ED), or Magic (varies).