Surrealone

Your remark is precisely why I prefer using Transform (Object->Broken/Unusable Rendition of Object). It's explicit/well-defined ... as is the body of all foci (even unbreakable ones). The chosen Transform level (Minor, Major, Severe) helps further define just how broken the object can be (once transformed). As most of us know, Dispel originated as a means of turning off a power ... and was later expanded to try to do more than that ... without adequate clarity/granularity emplaced regarding precisely HOW to do some of those things (like disassemble/break foci, for example -- i.e. what, exactly does that mean?). Most GMs I've gamed with have steered clear of the expanded Dispel capabilities (such as object disassembly/breakage) for precisely this lack of clarity/granularity ... in favour of better-defined vehicles for object disassembly/breakage. I'm sure Dispel is great for players and GMs who like handwaving things, but it's been my experience that most Champions/Hero Games players aren't all that into handwaving. (I know I'm not.) YMMV P.S. This is also why I think Change Environment is a pretty terrible power. Certain people try to make it do all kinds of things where it sorta fits ... but where there's often a different and clearer path.

Per actual RAW (as cited, above), PSLs modify the penalty ... which obviously has to happen before you can apply a penalty when working through a checklist like the DCV checklist. To answer your question about half CV: Pre-compute the penalty value of half CV for the situation that causes it. Purchase enough PSLs for the situation that causes the penalty .... such that the penalty is counteracted. When the situation arises ... take the penalty, modify it using the PSLs that were purchased, and then proceed through your checklist like you normally would. Example: Let's say our hero has DCV 10 and the situation we want to deal with is Prone (i.e. 1/2 DCV) ... just to keep things simple -10/2 = -5 = penalty value of half DCV when prone Buy 5 PSLs for DCV to modify/reduce/counteract the penalty value of being Prone The next time the character is Prone, the penalty value of -10/2 = -5 will be counteracted by the +5 PSLs for DCV that apply when Prone, resulting in a modified penalty value of 0 ... which is the modified penalty value you'd then use when working through your checklist as usual ... resulting in full DCV while Prone. The above process works for half DCV, half OCV, and the like. I can't speak to 0 OCV from using a movement ability at noncombat velocity ... but I also don't think I know a GM who would allow someone to buy a PSL for that situation, so I feel pretty justified in punting on that lark.

No, the argument is that the AUTHOR of the rules contradicts the actual verbiage in the RAW he authored, at times -- i.e. he's human/fallible. RAW regarding PSLs is very clear -- they modify the penalty, not OCV/DCV. Need evidence? For this I cite 6e1 p84 which states: "Penalty Skill Levels (PSLs) are a type of Skill Level that only reduce or counteract a specific type of combat-related penalty." Notice how that verbiage indicates Penalty Skill Levels are a type of skill level (implying a difference between them and, say, Combat Skill Levels)? Notice how that verbiage does NOT say PSLs modify OCV/DCV? Notice how the language specifically states PSLs reduce/counteract a specific type of combat-related penalty? Per the cited verbiage, PSLs very clearly modify/reduce/counteract penalties ... not OCV/DCV. (Read the quoted words again, carefully, if you doubt.) Now, couple the foregoing with the DCV checklist (that was so kindly cited earlier in this thread) making absolutely no mention of PSLs (which as I pointed out, above, are not the same as CSLs) ... and, well, it's clear that actual, in-force, long-standing RAW has PSLs not figuring into things like DCV halving (since they don't modify DCV prior to halving ... they modify the penalty!) -- at least not by way of any verbiage within RAW. RAW (which Mr. Long previously authored) codifies how Mr. Long intended the rules to work at the time of their writing and, unfortunately, Mr. Long's latest response to an inquiry on this very subject contradicts the verbiage he previously selected/used to codify his intent. This suggests he's either changed his opinion on the matter (in which case we'd expect to see the issue addressed in errata) ... or he made a mistake during the original codification of the rules ... or made one when responding to the recent inquiry on them. Occam's Razor would suggest the last of the aforementioned possibilities is the most probable, since it involved a snap response made to fairly open question (with no reference from the inquirer made to the 6e1 p84 citation I noted above).

Alright, time to put this to the hive mind because I can't seem to find it on my own: Strafe lets someone shoot on the move (a full move) to simulate running/gunning action. Well, let's say I want to simulate running/gunning action with someone using a non-ranged power ... like Aid. (i.e. Someone buffs himself on the move -- a fairly common trope.) Do we have a freebie (i.e. non-martial, non-triggered) maneuver for that which permits a full move plus an attack action ... like we do with Strafe? (And if not, why not?) I'm coming up with zilch ... and think I see a bit of bias toward ranged attack actions, here ... but figured I'd check with a larger group, first.

Unfortunately, Mr. Long has a history of contradicting some items in RAW .... with his own rulings made at a later date. This is subtle enough that it's prone to being one such place.

You left nothing unlisted that I would have mentioned, so I have nothing to add.

Heh!

I share the same interpretation/understanding as Cantriped on PSLs ... i.e. PSL's modify the actual penalty ... not OCV/DCV.

Excellent re-posting of that link. Thank you for that.

Sure, but then you might as well have an Extra Limb with Stretching, since you've basically constructed a power to simulate exactly that. Less filling, tastes great... plus I seem to recall RAW verbiage somewhere about not using one power to build what another one already does. Can't quite place where or what the exact verbiage is; but I'm sure someone will round it up or correct me if I'm mistaken.

I personally like Major Transform (Object into Broken/Unusable Variant of Original Object) with the Cumulative advantage as a vehicle ... since that nicely handles unbreakable foci, too. I guess I prefer the certainty of it ... which is what Dispel and damage-based approaches seem to lack a fair bit of (especially when it comes to unbreakable foci). Note that this pairs nicely with the Damage Over Time advantage where defenses only apply once and you cannot re-apply it ... assuming you start with low dice ... and also have Penetrating to address Power Defense. This pairing creates a very nice fire-and-forget effect that is kind of pretty to watch (i.e. the object breaks/falls apart) ... while you're free to do other things.

I concur with Lucius and Hyper-Man.

Using your numbering, above, in my responses: Your handling of this matches what I've seen in every game I've played since 3rd Edition. This one's tougher and ultimately a GM call. I've seen many GMs use DEX rolls (per your handling), but I've also seen many GMs apply both actions at the same time (and hey, why not? the brick can soak it, right? and it's cinematically appropriate, right?). That said, I believe most would agree that if the brick held his action to wait for Speedy Jim's pass at him, he should (for cinematic reasons, since combat and movement are only chunked according to SPD to make things manageable) at a bare minimum get a shot at Speedy Jim even if Speedy Jim goes first ... assuming the brick is still conscious. The GMs I've seen use DEX rolls would tend to apply negative OCV modifiers to the brick based on how much he missed his DEX roll ... just to be fair to Speedy Jim since he is, after all, already moving away from the brick in the case where the brick failed the DEX roll. I personally like the shots landing simultaneously for cinematic reasons .... or the waiting brick at least getting a chance (with negatives to OCV based on failed DEX roll) if he misses a DEX roll -- but ultimately the call is up to the GM and what the GM prefers, cinematically. This one's also a GM call ... especially since Aid may or may not be deemed defensive in nature. If I were GM'ing, I'd treat an Aid to any characteristic 6e considers defensive (a la the halving rule for Adjustment Powers) as a defensive action ... and permit the Aid with no DEX roll needed ... UNLESS the Aid were ranged and the person using it had to make an attack roll to hit the target of the Aid (in which case I would require a DEX roll to see what happens first ... because of the required attack action). There is, of course, an exception to the ranged Aid ruling as well -- if the source of the ranged Aid had the potential target of the ranged Aid 'Covered' (per the maneuver) in advance of the attack the Aid is intended to help mitigate, then the attack roll was effectively already made (in advance of the attack the Aid is intended to help mitigate) and I'd again require no DEX roll.

DasBroot, I have to disagree on this one. Key to this is that Clairsentience changes ONLY the perception point ... in a way that is inherently NOT visible to observers unless a limitation is taken on it. i.e. It's a disjointed form of perception ... that has inherently indirect and IPE properties. That's not what Ninja-Bear is after -- i.e. he's not trying to move his perception point (and only his perception point). Moreover, if he did build out with Clairsentience ... and was using it to look around a corner ... and took the limitations appropriate to make it visible to observers, only have a very limited range, etc -- then if someone attacked that perception point (SFX being his stretched head/neck) ... what would happen? Technically there's nothing there to attack (disjoint perception point, remember?) ... and it's not a limb ... or a part of the body. Let's say you further limited clairsentience to reflect that it crosses intervening space ... now you've got so many limitations heaped on it that the cost is probably lower than you imagine ... and you're beginning to simulate an existing power or powers (i.e. Extra Limbs and Stretching). Buying both Extra Limbs (Neck) and Stretching seems to avoid all of that wonkiness. I think it's cleaner and more appropriate, and if I were a GM for a campaign for which Ninja-Bear was building, it's what I'd recommend.

The more I think about this, the more I think that DCV with an only usable when Multiple Attacking limitation makes perfect sense. (It could even be used in conjunction with Defensive Attack, if desired.)

A pop-up turret only makes sense when you want/need a heavily-armed (and usually armored) vehicle that doesn't freak out drivers of most other vehicles around it. (Obviously air vehicles can tell.) Private security organizations are the most likely consumers of such a mount. Check this video out, especially from 1:19 to 1:48 relative to my remarks.

Probably not as large as his/her bank account. (Imagine the compound interest across infinity!)

Sure! Just buy Extra Limbs (so you can treat it as an actual limb, meaning grab things with it (wrap around), etc.) and Stretching. Just be wary of mooks using Choke Hold against you, as a longer neck should make you a bit easier to grab by the neck and choke ... unless the character doesn't have a wind pipe carrying air down the neck like humans do.

Oh I'm sure they'll come up with pintle mounts and pop-up, rotating turret mounts (for use in, say, the roof of an SUV) for it ... as there's really no market for the gun without accessories that make it versatile.

Maximillian, V.I.N.CENT, and old B.O.B. from The Black Hole come to mind as interesting and diverse synthetics.

It apparently has options for 10" and 16" barrels, should longer barrels be desired.

See the text for 'Nonpersistent' above ... specifically the text I put in blue. That's RAW and clarifies what happens when Costs Endurance (at any level) is applied to a Persistent power. That said, there are situations where a GM can, should, and likely will rule counter to RAW (as in my example of a force field on an OIF implanted device) ... and allow Costs Endurance (Only to Activate) to apply to a Persistent power without turning it into a Constant one -- but that's purely a GM discretion kind of thing, not RAW.

What's on CC 102 is an Advantage (Costs Endurance Only to Activate) ... i.e. something that causes a Constant Power to cost END only once ... instead of every phase. This is actually a subset of the Reduced Endurance Advantage in 6e (specifically found on 6e1 p345). What Lucius used in his build was a Limitation, not an Advantage. It was specifically a subset of the Costs Endurance Limitation ... the -1/4 Only To Activate variant, usually written as: Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) ... which is how Lucius expressed it. (It's commonly abbreviated as Costs Endurance (Only to Activate) or similar ... and is obviously a Limitation (no matter how it's phrased/expressed) when applied to a Persistent power like Life Support that normally costs no END to use.) i.e. My best guess is that you have been confusing an END-reduction Advantage ... with the END-increasing Limitation that Lucius used in his build. Does that help clear things up ... or did I miss something?

The planet-busting super weapons entry needs to be done away with. Why? Because if you have faster-than-light travel inside of a warp bubble, then all you need to do is release something the size of a marble (with the density of a marble) from the warp bubble on a trajectory toward a planet or star ... while the warp bubble is moving faster than light ... and then stop/slow the warp bubble (while the marble-like object you released outside the bubble keeps right on going). Key to this is that something moving faster than light (and outside of the warp bubble) will have infinite mass per Einsteinian physics ... and be traveling on a vector toward a target at which you aimed it using your trajectory ... most likely turning said target into Alderaan-sized particulate matter upon impact ... since the infinitely-massive marble will have more mass than the finite-mass planet or star at which you aimed it. (And wow is it going to impart some energy upon impact!) i.e. If you have FTL and you also have the ability to release something on a vector while at FTL speeds ... and then stop short of a target, yourself ... you automatically have a planet-busting super weapon.

See the 6e RAW pertaining to (teleportation) Gates on 6e1 p301.