Surrealone

Champions Complete does NOT contain the complete rules within its pages. Search these forums and you'll find numerous posts about CC where table references have been noted as missing, items in 6e power description text was eliminated (missed?) within CC power description text, etc. Yet CC is what's available for new players to buy in print -- which is what gamers tend to have a penchant for consuming. You may consider the issue "tired, misguided, and incorrect", but the facts do not support your assertion that 'all of these books contain the complete rules'; instead, that statement of yours is what is "tired, misguided, and incorrect". The fact that others seem to desire a unified and definitive approach to the rules that are deemed the latest/authoritative/referenceable material ... suggests I'm not alone in my perspective. Perhaps Jason and Steve need a more community-centric approach, because right now Aaron pushes what he's incented to push (the 'Completes') while Steve answers questions using what he's incented to push (6e v1&2) ... while the community gets stuck in the middle and new players who bought one of the 'Completes' have the potential to come here, ask rules questions, get a reference to material they didn't buy, and wonder where the hell they can buy it in printed form. I don't know how you can so readily ignore that problem... or defend the causes of it. (HINT: There are two of them and they both have first names, surnames, and divergent agendas which they apparently will not bother to rectify/unify -- and it has this community caught squarely in the crossfire.)

​I disagree, since there's a Fuel Dependent limitation that first appeared in The Ultimate Vehicle. To me this is a clear indication that the thinking behind 'charges' and 'fuel' is different from a printed material, RAW standpoint. i.e. There's a different and specialized limitation for something that can only be used X number of times before refueling (be it a vehicle, a 'juice pack', etc.) ... compared to something that can only be used X number of times because of physical expenditure -- else there'd have been no need for the Fuel Dependent modifier to have been added. ​This thread's not been limited to stock 5er or 6e mechanics, so the conversation hasn't been framed that way. Nor is this akin to Energy Blast not being able to be physical because of only a name; rather, there are two distinctly different limitations for Charges and Fuel Dependency ... for a legit reason. If one wants to simulate something that must be refueled, like a 'juice pack', there's a specialized limitation for Fuel Dependent specifically for that ... one that's significantly different from 'Charges'.

Not in a heroic level game where FTL vessels exist ... or where a character has the FTL power. A bowling ball is merely equipment ... as would be a FTL vehicle. If you want to hang your hat on it costing -something- because the bowling ball has a MSRP as does the vehicle, well, such things can be stolen, borrowed, or hey, someone with Transform could simply make a lump of material about the size/density of a bowling ball.

I think he's a 5er player given the reference to Suppress and use of Continuous. After all, in 6E this would be a Drain with the Costs Endurance to Maintain limitation (i.e. 6e's version of Suppress) ... and most likely a Damage Over Time advantage.

Another factor for Uncontrolled is that if the Uncontrolled power is bought in a framework, you can switch slots (or reallocate your pool) to do something else while the Uncontrolled power continues to function. Whether right/wrong for this build, that's something worth remembering about the Uncontrolled advantage. Also, I believe since your rebuild switched to a full 1d6 of Suppress, your max from the cumulative advantage's three doublings would be 6*2*2*2=48 ... not 24. Last, by making the rebuilt version Continuous, the target is going to take the Suppress phase after phase without you having to hit him/her again (and without hitting you over and over). You may wish to consider the amount of bookwork this will generate if you intend to use it on multiple targets ... as the faster you are, the more there will be to keep track of and the more cumbersome for your entire group (in real life) it will be when using this in combat. Food for thought....

That's clearly ED movement...

The FTL power clearly violates the law of conservation of energy since the power costs no endurance to use -- by a character that can carry a bowling ball or a vehicle that can carry a lot more. Since RAW basically handwaves the issue, megaplayboy's reltativistic bomb (a la "Oh My God particle") kinda -is- something for nothing (0 END!) in any campaign in which FTL has been permitted, as allowing FTL entails suspension of disbelief with regard to the physics associated with going superluminal (i.e. energy, mass, etc. issues).

Print is still very much 'IN', as most gamers tend to prefer printed materials for whatever reason. This very forum has threads devoted to print on demand of Hero System PDFs ... as well as threads like this one: The presence of both should be a solid indicator as to the format most seem to prefer. Me ... I like having both PDF and printed material.

1kg of raw iron (i.e. a little more than 3/4 cup in volume) traveling in a frictionless void at 99% the speed of light would have the kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, on impact it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT or approximately 75 megatons more than the yield of Tsar Bomba, the Soviet hydrogen bomb tested on October 30, 1961, which had a 50 megaton yield ... and which still stands as the most powerful nuclear weapon detonated by mankind, to date. ​Now accelerate that 1kg of raw iron to FTL speeds. It's not just planet-killing at such speeds, it's potentially star-killing -- even if the star's radiation manages to melt the material on its way into the core. ​Google 'relativistic bomb' for this one. Wikipedia has the math on it...

Does STR purchased with the +2 Affects Real World advantage cost more END to use than STR that lacks this advantage ... or is END cost paid as usual for the STR used? How does Pushing STR purchased with said advantage work?

Love these ... but I'm noticing a trend that might warrant a new package. Rather than try to build one out like yours I figure I'll render my observation and provide some food for thought in case you're interested. So far I see differing ammunition types between pistols and rifles -- meaning no ammunition sharing between the handguns and long guns -- which will usually determine/influence the safe/reasonable limit/length of an incursion due to ammunition running dry for one or both firearms. Someone who needs a lengthy incursion where s/he cannot regularly/readily resupply from a depot or base will often 1) standardize ammunition between handguns and long guns in order to be able to redistribute ammunition readily between them and 2) choose an ammunition type that might readily allow for resupply during the incursion (i.e. from fallen foes, confiscated weapons, etc.) 9mm being a NATO round is a natural choice since it is ubiquitous across the globe, allowing for fairly ready resupply during an incursion. A gen4 Glock 17 for a handgun combined with a gen2 Kel-Tec Sub 2000 (which folds in half to go into a backpack and weighs a measley 4.5lbs OOB) that takes Glock 17 magazines and is chambered in 9mm is a natural pairing -- as there's not only ammunition sharing -- but magazine sharing between the long gun and the pistol. The gen2 Sub 2000 also comes OOB with a threaded barrel and barrel nut, which means you can easily toss in a suppressor that is shared between both firearms into the mix provided the G17 has a threaded barrel, too. Use of 147gr ammunition will mean inherently subsonic rounds for both weapons ... which means quiet shots with no supersonic crack for whichever firearm is using the suppressor. The Sub 2000 is a dirty, blowback design that is very simple with few moving parts -- making it reliable and resulting in few malfunctions which, if encountered, can usually be attended to in the field. High-capacity 33 round Glock magazines are an option for both guns, as well... This sort of standardization and sharing (suppressor, magazines, and ammunition) means increased interchangeability and options ... with reduced weight (since you only need one set of magazines for both guns). The weight reduction means you can carry a few more rounds without increased fatique ... and it also means you don't run into a scenario where one gun runs dry while the other has ammo, since you can adjust on the fly. A similar effect could be obtained with a Glock 21 and a Kriss Vector chambered in .45 ACP, as they can share ammunition, standard capacity magazines, and 25 round high-capacity magazines. This means fewer rounds and more weight (due to ammo weight) than the 9mm approach ... but it also means more stopping power per shot. .45 ACP being inherently subsonic means you have another logical pairing with a suppressor for both guns, provided the G21 has a threaded barrel (as the Vector tends to come pre-threaded). Despite fewer shots, the increased stopping power of the .45 ACP round is combined with the CQB advantages of a SBR Vector that has full auto capability -- making autofire attacks viable and potentially devastating due to the Vector being engineered specifically to reduce/limit muzzle rise during full auto fire (resulting in increased accuracy with the Vector when in full-auto as compared to other full-auto .45 ACP rifles). That said, the Vector is a complicated machine that has some known reliability issues (probably a jammed limitation) that are tough to address in the field ... so one trades reliability for firepower by choosing the G21/Vector combination over a G17/Sub2000 combination. Another drawback to the .45 ACP pairing approach is that .45 ACP is a common American caliber ... one that's tougher to find in other parts of the world, resulting in resupply via scavenging becoming a concern for an incursion that is far from US soil (where .45 ACP may not be readily available). It might make sense to work up a package that is intended for lengthy incursions without resupply (or leveraging resupply via scavenging) ... one that entails this kind of ammo/magazine/suppressor sharing and caliber options for global or US-centric incursions? Both military personnel and preppers may be prone to building out kit in this way ... based on their expected needs, of course. I really like where you've taken this but probably couldn't build out packages as detailed as your own, so I thought I'd just toss a little gas (i.e. fuel in the form of ideas) on the fire, instead. Surreal ​P.S. The Vector also comes in a 9mm variant -- making a G17/Vector pairing and ammo/magazine/suppressor sharing an option, too -- but I thought it might make for an interesting choice if there was a reliability vs. firepower decision in the mix in addition to a caliber stopping power choice to be made. (Thus, why I paired the G17 with a Sub2000 instead of a Vector chambered in 9mm...)

I hated that shotgun in that episode ... because it is ridiculous. That said, the comedic value of the boy-scout-like 'be prepared' approach was not lost on me given what Mack previously had to do to Coulson.

Perhaps for 5er and earlier, but not for 6e...

Breakout rolls for Mind Control do NOT resist something that's 'ongoing' ... unless the mental power is continuous. Instead, they resist the lingering/lasting effects (carrying out the mind control -- which is likened unto the body/stun of a blast) of an instant assault that took place in the past (the successful mind control). That said, I kinda like that house rule...

It's the lasting effects (e.g. stun/body damage, mind control effects, etc.) of the instant power that can't be dispelled. Where this gets interesting is if the lasting effects of a cumulative power have not yet taken effect (i.e. when, say, a low dice cumulative Mind Control has not yet reached the specified target level of EGO+0, EGO+10, etc.) In such a case, there's not yet an effect to be dispelled -- only a power with something ready to have more stacked onto it. I'd think that'd be very dispelable. I would also think that because it's cumulative there'd still be something visible (i.e. the residue from the original attack ... onto which the next one is stacked) on the mental spectrum for it ... until such time as it completely fades/abates.

By 'first tick' I presume you mean the one that hits/lands, as that's technically the first application of the cumulative attack and hence, the 'first tick'. Can you confirm? See below, as to why I'm asking... Assuming the above 'first tick' remark was truly a reference to the FIRST application of the effect, why is there a problem with the Dispel? And FWIW, I feel Steve needs to stop referencing out-of-print material and begin referencing in-print material if he's going to use page references as/within answers. It's kind of ridiculous to reference something people can no longer purchase in hardcopy.

Since 6e is no longer in print, can you point me to where this is included in the in-print and supposedly authoritative 'Champions Complete'? I looked and there is no such info on page 58 (wherein the Dispel power is covered by Champions Complete). I also looked on page 142 of CC -- which covers 'Breaking Things'. As CC is the latest available in-print set of rules and is supposedly 'complete' (per its name), finding no details about use of Dispel for this purpose suggests either something changed between 6e and CC ... or CC is not actually complete (which I have asserted numerous times only to have long-time forum posters insist that it IS complete). Let me know what you find. To me that sounds like either an END reserve that can only be charged in the lab ... or a fuel option where it can only be refueled in a lab -- since its is 'juice' you're talking about. Charges I think of akin to bullets (for a gun), rocks (for a sling), gumballs (for a gum dispenser), etc. -- i.e. some physical item that is expended/lost/consumed ... unless recoverable (like a throwing star or a throwing knife, in which case it is spent and only reusable once recovered). In this case, your modules aren't expended/lost/consumed (or dispensed and then reclaimed like throwing knives), but are, instead, emptied and recharged -- which strongly suggests fuel (where you can only refuel in said lab) or END reserve (whose REC only functions in said lab). Now if he had a gumball-powered blast and the gumball was expended/lost/consumed and he could only get new gumballs in the lab, then I think a case begins to be made. That said, I get the strong sense you and the OP prefer charges because you're both morphing the concept around cost preference ... instead of sticking strictly to an actual 'one thing powers the other' (a la the belt powers the gauntlet) concept. After all, if gumballs are used to provide power, then you've changed the concept from 'the belt powers the gauntlet' to 'gumballs power both the belt and the gauntlet' in order to fit cost ... and a wee bit of concept was thrown out the window to do so.

A limitation for a side effect that 'always occurs' ... to dispel an instant power that may not be in use? That is very strange to me -- as you can't dispel what's not in play ... which means you can't use an 'always occurs' limitation and have 'always' actually mean 'always'. Some real problems with this build... I, too, immediately thought of and END Reserve & REC on the belt to simulate the power source; I think it's the most accurate way to model the belt being the power source for the gauntlet. That said, I think the naked advantage (bought on the belt) for the blast (bought on the gauntlets) fails to simulate the belt exploding, as very technically the blast on the gauntlet has to function for the belt to explode ... and that seems like an inaccurate way to model the exploding belt which I thought was supposed to be able to occur regardless of the presence/use of the gauntlet (but perhaps I misunderstood). Thus, I'd expect the following: END Reserve and REC on belt Blast on gauntlet fed from end reserve Stand-alone explosive power on belt -- with a single use charge (i.e. still works if END reserve is out of end) Charges for the gauntlet seem hokey, clunky, and inaccurate in terms of modeling... but a single-use charge on the belt for its explosion makes sense to me.

I immediately wondered this, as well. Yup, the mental power would be visible to MA unless purchased with IPE. This means your PC psychic could, if s/he was the target of the attack, use a held action to Dispel the incoming mental attack and keep it from ever landing, if desired. (See note below for more thoughts...) On a separate note: Champions Complete has no callout on Dispel to indicate that it is not usable on Mind Control. That said, under most circumstances Mind Control is an instant power with lasting effects and, thus, wouldn't (per Champions Complete RAW RE: Dispel) be Dispelable unless a GM allowed it. However, because this Mind Control is purchased as low-diceage and cumulative, the lasting effect doesn't really take place until such time as the Mind Control cumulative total reaches a sufficient level to hit the target's Ego+10, Ego+20, Ego+30 (i.e. whatever level was declared as the target level for the Mind Control effect prior to making the attack) -- in which case, I think most reasonable people would rule that it should be Dispelable until that lasting effect (at the declared Mind Control effect level) kicks in.

This is just Stealth defined as an Unremarkable Appearance. i.e. It's the same effect as not being seen ... but instead of not being seen, it's being so normal as to blend in with everyone else who WAS seen. Some GM's might require a Stealth roll with a complimentary Acting roll ... to behave normally (the Acting part) while moving/blending properly (the Stealth part) with others. i.e. You just finished running your tail off to get around a corner ... and must now walk normally up to purchase a bus ticket ... while breathing and talking normally despite being winded. (Truly painful GM's might slap a CON roll on top of both rolls ... to control breathing ... but I'd think Acting would get that.)

Ignore this post, as a weird double-post occurred...

Ninja-Bear: Just the potential. If I wanted to ensure it I'd slap Penetrating on as an advantage.

Stun Only entails doing 0 body -- and as previously noted, doing 0 body is a disqualifier that impacts Stun Only, NND, AVALD/AVAD, and even Drain Stun limitations for a single-power construct. We're looking for a way to do large amounts of stun but only small amounts of body using stock approaches. So far Ninja-Bear's shown a good one by combining a 4D6 blast with an 8D6 stun-only blast. I admit I wasn't thinking about compound powers when I made the assertion that g3taso quoted, I was only thinking about a single-power constructs; a compound power CAN do the trick.

This one doesn't do any body. Doing 0 body is not the same as not doing much body ... because the latter entails -some- body being done. See above -- STUN Only means no BODY is done. As a reminder: The quote that g3taso made of my commentary from another thread entailed finding a way ... using only stock (i.e. non-custom) Hero modifiers ... to take a standard attack (i.e. HA, Blast, etc.) and do large amounts of STUN without doing much BODY. This means -some- body needs to be done, but it should be low ... with a comparatively high stun total. That rules out NND, AVLD, and other attacks that do 0 BODY. It also rules out custom modifiers (example: GM fiat 'does 1 body' modifiers). Last, it rules out use of RKA/HKA with stun multiplier, since that's the one way we -know- we can produce the desired effect ... and the entire point of the remark was that it seems to be the ONLY mechanic provided that allows for it. g3taso appears to be looking for another way to simulate it using bone stock modifiers. I can't think of one, and if anyone can, I'd like to see it, as well. Surreal P.S. The prior example we were playing with in another thread was a 150 AP attack that on average produced 3 BODY and 111 STUN ... using 1d6HKA with a +35 STUN multiplier -- this was being compared to 30d6 HA that on average produced a LOT more BODY (~30) and significantly less STUN (~71). So the question asked in this thread .. if operating under the same parameters as the 150 AP attack discussion from which my remark was taken ... entails trying to produce 1-6 BODY (as an example) ... or heck, even 2-12 BODY .... and something between 70 and 100 STUN ... using non-killing attack approaches and bone stock modifiers. i.e. Low BODY, high stun.

IMHO, 150 AP of anything is cheesy -- regardless of how it's built. Thus, I saw the entire thread/premise as absurd.