Surrealone

Yup, sounds reasonable to me. Though I would also argue that you ought to be able to prohibit circiling outside of your phase. Like the one hex shift rule (or 5' step in D&D) from TFT makes sense, you slowly and methodically move so as to not leave yourself open to an attack. But if you go fast you can be attacked (or in TFT's case you simply cannot move more than one hex while engaged). 

Thank you. Absolutely agreed on both counts. 
 
 
Oh, I use rule from different editions. 
 
The problem with the 'fix' in 6e is that it still doesn't prevent dancing around a static, aware opponent. It doesn't go far enough I guess? That's basically all I'm saying. 

Absolutely. It's impossible. And the rules should reflect that (making allowances for genre of course, speedsters et al).

fiat /ˈfiːat,ˈfʌɪat/ noun   a formal authorization or proposition; a decree   Whether its based on 'common sense', feelings, or the phase of the moon, any such ruling is a GM's fiat.

I'm not so sure how that is any easier than simply invoking a 'threatened hex' rule or allowing an Abort to attack against someone blithly ignoring somone. Those are rules that have teeth (and can be seasoned to taste in regards to Move Through and Move By) rather than simply the GM asking the player to be reasonable. There will always be a situation where it's justifiable to ignore common sense because 'this time there are reasons!'.
 
 
My experience in both boffer and martial arts is exactly that. It's impossible to get around an opponent one on one, unless they slip or trip or something. Only when facing multiple opponents is that a possibility. 
 
 
Yeah, I agree. 

You assume B has never acted, or A for that matter. The instant one of them acts, the twrling back stab fest begins. That's why your example falls apart. Once one of them acts, you know, attacks, they are then frozen and that is NOT how a real knife fight goes. The 'opening' a fighter is looking for is not one that allows them to get 180 degrees behind an opponent. 
 
 
I never suggested such a fix nor would I want it. 
 
 
Because if you are making a call based on feelings or common sense or personal taste, going outside RAW,  that is you are exercising GM fiat. All Houserules are GM fiat.  
 
 
Wow...sexism too. That's great.
 
Your high speed fighter has then just left themselves open to being stabbed in the back. 
 
 
It does not address being able to move around an armed opponent with impunity. 

Ah, thanks for that!
 
Next question, in a hex map, what constitutes 'behind'? Only the rear hex? The 180' arc? In TFT for example, your front three hexes are considered 'front', the right and left one behind you count as your 'side' and only the single hex counts as 'rear'. 
 
Also, since Hero doesn't have any rules governing a figure being locked into place or being penalised for moving around someone in combat, what prevents other characters from circling each other every action to get that sweet 1/2 DCV?

It also doesn't seem fair to downvote just because you disagree with someone … or because you feel offended by something someone wrote when that wasn't the person's intent.  The fact that this was done, suggests fairness isn't part of the equation that was used by some people when conducting their downvotes. Thus, it seems a bit unreasonable to hold others to a standard of fairness when it comes to downvoting.  (I believe there's a term/word for holding others to a standard to which one does not, oneself, conform/adhere.  Hypo...something.  Hrm, if I could only remember the rest of it...)

Is it so unrealistic?  Speedsters use the tactic regularly in the comics. Normal knife fighters circle each other, too.  Those are two examples off the top of my head without putting any effort into considering it...
 
As for preventing the repercussions of back attacks being different from stopping people from using them -- if the outcome is the same (no r little advantage/effect), what difference does it actually make? For me, it doesn't make enough difference to matter -- and only amounts to differences in how the story is told (i.e. how the combat actually unfolds if one was to write it up as a set of comic book panels or as part of a chapter in a book.)

That's the GM's call. I've seen many GM's run the rear three hexes as follows: the single hex immediately to the rear of the character entails attacking from behind (with the target at 1/2 DCV) while those to the left and right rear of the target are considered flanking  attacks (with the target at -1 to -3 DCV depending  on base DCV of target, maneuver/visibility of attacker, preparedness of target, etc.).
 
 
 
Defense Maneuver, the purchase of powers that result in not caring if one is hit (in Hulk-like fashion, for example), positioning oneself with one's back to an ally or a wall, judicious use of cover with maneuvers like Snapshot, and the like all prevent this.  Plainly put -- point expenditures and/or good character play by discerning players are all that's required...

Please see the DCV MODIFIERS TABLE on p373 (as labeled on the page) of 5th Edition (Revised) aka FRED. What you're looking for is in that table as it relates to being attacked from behind (both in and out of combat).
 

I highly suspected you might counter with the argument that the penalties are the same … and almost pre-empted it.  But then I thought, 'No, surely people won't think the two should be treated as if they are the same in 5er just because their penalties are the same, as that just doesn't make sense when it comes to other penalties that are the same in 5er ... such as the -2 penalty for 'Fighting in a cluttered or cramped area' and the -2 penalty for 'Underwater'.  Surely no one will advocate that these latter two are the same in 5er just because their penalties are … and therefore, surely no one will do so with 'Attacked from behind' vs. 'Surprised' in 5er."

I guess I should have pre-empted?   That aside, I tend to agree that 5er is the outlier.  Yet one more reason to move to 6e, since it addresses issues like this … among others.

And yes, there's a lot of downvoting going on, here. I didn't start it, but I noted several someones were downvoting me any/every time I said something with which they disagreed, so I responded in kind.  I agree this is not normal, here, and I don't like it, either.  In fact, I don't remember EVER using the downvote option until today ... and I've been here a while. However, if that's how those people want things to be between us, I can give as good as I get … and have. If those people want to undo it, I'll retract mine, as well -- but as far as I'm concerned, the ones who started it … also need to initiate the retraction(s).
 
  
Spot-on!
 

Taking a Half Phase Action (be it moving or something else) and holding the remainder of one's action … until near the end of the Segment immediately prior to one's next Phase … is a common tactic in Hero System play.  This tactic is designed to allow maximum reaction without losing one's own action … and use of it is why Knife Fighter B would not be 'frozen' from his previous action.  (Also, this system uses Segments/Phases, not 'rounds'.)  Now, if Knife Fighter B was stupid enough to leave an opening by taking a Full Phase Action instead of using Half Phases, well, then s/he gets what s/he deserves.  That's actually spot-on for a knife fight, by the way, as each knife fighter tends to be circling looking for precisely that sort of opening.

When simulating combat second-by-second (a la Segments/Phases) … rather than minute-by-minute (a la 'rounds') … you have to address movement/facing in more granular fashion than other minute-by-minute systems do.  HERO System does that fairly well, but it's by no means perfect.  The 'fix' to what you are describing is to have characters (i.e. not just vehicles) use segmented movement -- something I and another have actually toyed with.  It works well enough, but it's incredibly cumbersome in that it slows everything down (in combats that are already quite slow compared to other systems)  … because pretty much every character is moving every Segment in much of a given Turn.

As for consistency -- I've been quite consistent.  GM common sense should always apply -- and GM fiat is absolutely not required for it to do so, in this case.  As previously noted, there are ways to deal with what you're concerned with … that don't entail the use of GM fiat. You just keep waving those things away for some reason...

As far as higher speed characters having an edge over lower speed ones in terms of openings, you're absolutely correct: they do. That's part of the game design and why Speed is so expensive.  This is also why GMs are supposed to set campaign limits prior to character creation -- such that a high Speed character isn't also a high damage AND/OR high defense character.  i.e. A speedster relying on back attacks probably hits very reliably, but also hits like a proverbial 'girl' (no disrespect intended to female heroines) … if a GM has done his/her job setting campaign limits properly.  (Again, we're back to GM common sense...)

As far as hexes are concerned, that, too is addressed in 6e, as hexes are 1m, not 2m in 6e -- meaning characters are pretty much always in different hexes unless on top of/under one another, desolid, or some other similar scenario.
 

I play both 5er and 6e and move fairly seamlessly between the two despite their differences.  Neither of my GMs mix them; both are rules purists.  I feel both editions have their merits and flaws, and I happen to like them both for different reasons.  So, anyone thinking I was being edition-warry was sorely mistaken.  However, like Usagi, I, too, think it makes no sense to gripe about something that one sees as a problem in an earlier edition … that is fixed in a later edition … since the problem is easily and readily solved by either moving to the edition wherein the problem is solved … or playing a game that uses a blended ruleset.
 
I guess some people would rather just bitch than switch (with respect to problems in the ruleset they're playing … relative to fixes in a ruleset they could switch to or blend from). To this day, I don't understand the point of such edition slamming regarding an edition-specific problem… when a solution is already present.  Key to this is that, from my angle, it just sounds like un-necessary noise about an already-solved problem … as do complaints about it not being solved sooner (i.e. in earlier editions).  For me it boils down to a lack of understanding why someone would spend so much energy on the issue … when that same energy could be spent moving to an edition where it's fixed (if one wants to be a rules purist) … or blending rules from the fixed edition to the current edition (if one wants to).

I also don't understand why someone would house rule something away when one could actually use the situation to generate good storyline/storytelling. Key to this is that regardless of the edition being used, shared storytelling is what the ruleset ultimately enables, right?

 

Not once did I intentionally target anything rude or insulting at you or your group.  And yes, I absolutely gave as good as I felt I got with downvotes.  As previously noted, if those who initiated the downvotes will retract them, I will, as well.  (I didn't start the downvoting … so I also won't start the retractions.  I like to be consistent.)

I voted 'cool but needs work' because I find it to be wholly mechanical -- without concrete examples of what this looks like, story-wise.  Getting up from knockback … is common sense; people know what that tends to look like, regardless of whether it's a Brick clambering to his/her feet … or a Ninja doing that thing to go from his/her back to his feet (possibly using Breakfall).  But what does helping someone recover from being stunned look like; can we get some examples … so that we can better understand why it takes time … and so that new GM's can readily understand the intent (thereby allowing them to give derivative descriptions)?

Ya' think?  LOL 😆

Ya' think?  LOL 😆

That's an absolute lie, if you need a reminder, just reread your posts. And no, you downvoted comments that disagreed with you, I've not been rude once, nor edition warred against you. 

No, I downvoted your rude and insulting posts. You then just went and downvoted everywhere I disagreed with you, because unlike you, I've not made snide remarks or personal insinuations. So, it's hardly tit-for-tat. You got downvoted for making rude remarks. But hey, you believe what you want to believe and just do you.

Lots of snide, derogatory, and dismissive remarks being thrown around. Maybe you missed me and my group being snidely derided?

Yeah, I'm glad I'm not alone! 
 
The problem for us is that we transferred characters over from TFT where position and placement are extremely important and it led to the PCs fighting in certain ways. I prefer, if I have to use a map, that the game system include some sort of 'lock down' mechanic (like threatened hexes) to prevent running past a target unless you use a Move by or Move Thru. So the fact that you can literally run around Dr. Destroyer/Evil Lich every phase and punch him in the back of the head really bothers me.

To stop the endless daisy chain of characters back-stabbing each other I had to set down a house rule for this as well.
 
You either have to approach from stealth or have a total of 3 attackers on a single target to get "behind" them.  Otherwise I assume the defender is responding in real time to avoid getting flanked.
 
It really does make for some ugly game play to have players endlessly running behind each other for a flanking bonus.

Well, since the Focus is typically the gun, the ammo usually ends up being nothing more than a special effect to properly represent the Charges/Jammed/Burnout limitation(s) as taken on the Focus.  As far as different ammo types on a Focus, that's usually represented by either a MP or a VPP on the Focus ... with Extra Time (half phase, only to activate) to switch slots or change the pool (to represent a magazine change to one holding different ammunition) ... and Charges on the slots or the specific VPP power (to represent only so much ammunition of a given type within the magazine(s) represented by Charges on the slot or VPP power).  Many a GM will allow Fast Draw to apply to the Extra Time ... since it represents a magazine change (and since Fast Draw is capable of mitigating the usual half phase mag change).
 
But to be fair, there's really not a huge variety of ammunition for most small arms.  Caliber tends to dictate capacity (since bigger rounds take up more space and weigh more) ... and once the caliber is chosen, capacity only varies based on how much extra weight/bulk you want to carry in terms of magazines.  i.e. It's not like there are a plenthora of options to choose from within most given calibers.  I can't just run out and buy .45 ACP armor piercing rounds ... or .45 ACP incendiary rounds ... or .45 ACP penetrating rounds ... or .45 ACP explosive rounds.  Instead, my choices are basically: wad cutter, full metal jacket, hollow point, and match grade ... with a special note for tracer rounds.
 
Using the .45 ACP example, in game terms, full metal jacket is likely the de facto standard on which the .45 pistol's damage is centered (which I'll express as Xd6 RKA) -- i.e. no delta and nothing special about those rounds.  Hollow points probably takes that .45 ACP from Xd6 RKA to Xd6+1 RKA ... while wad cutter/match grade are geared for competition shooting (the former intended for punching very clean holes in paper ... while the latter is constructed for improved ballistic coefficient/aerodynamics) ... and, thus, each is probably something closer to Xd6-1 RKA in terms of output.
 
Regarding the tracer rounds I mentioned:
There -are- tracer rounds, but they tend to be available only in calibers commonly used by the military -- are spendy -- and are tough for non-military folks to get because they're just not that common.  These guys sacrifice pretty much all of their damage by burning their material as they fly -- to allow the user of the Focus to roughly see where s/he is shooting. By and large they are used as either training aids (for night ops training) or are staggered (as in every 3rd or 5th round) in magazines (or belts) of autofire weapons that are intended for high volume shooting at night -- to help improve night shooting accuracy (via night shooting penalty reductions; I'd represent tracers with PSLs to offset penalties imposed by natural darkness - that only work at night or in similar situations)  .... when/where FLIR is not available.  They also have the side effect of giving away the shooter's position -- so no using Stealth with tracer rounds at night once the shooting starts.
 
Additional note:
Bullet weight (heavier versus lighter) within a given caliber doesn't tend to mean harder hits ... instead, it tends to be a tradeoff between speed/trajectory and wind resistance of given caliber bullets.  i.e. A lighter bullet of a given caliber shoots faster and flatter than a heavier one of the same caliber ... but a heavier one of the same caliber is not as affected by the wind and retains more of its energy at longer distances than its faster/lighter brothers of the same caliber.  Thus, I don't see stun multipliers or BODY damage changes as germane to the bullet weight conversation within a given caliber, since bullet weight within a given caliber choice is mostly about accuracy under certain circumstances ... and we're talking a +1 to offset range/wind modifiers, tops here ... only at and between very specific range thresholds for given calibers (i.e. immaterial at short distances for given calibers).
 

See where this is going?  Most of the real meat/potatoes of guns are in:
caliber choice -- which will tend to dictate damage output optic choice -- which will tend to offset range penalties quality choice - which will tend to dictate whether the focus has an activation/jammed/burnout roll slop (i.e. tolerance) - this one's kind of weird and represents a tradeoff between accuracy and reliability.  The AK-47 is a great example, you can let it get dirty, treat it badly, and it will be super reliable despite its low quality and cost ... but to do this it has sloppy/loose tolerances that result in a less accurate firearm than, say, the M16 (when it is clean, anyway).  You can tighten those tolerances, of course ... and when you do so, you'll sacrifice reliability to gain back some accuracy.  
Now if you want to go crazy and make up a bunch of guff (akin to Green Arrow's quiver of totally ridiculous arrows) ... then you'll basically be creating a pile of totally ridiculous ammo for your game -- i.e. stuff that's just not out here in the real world.  A great example would be the tranquilizer bullet (from the XXX movie) ... or the splatter dart bullet (from the same movie).  That's bogus stuff for Hollywood's sake.  Sure, there are tranquilizer guns ... but they are specialized guns with specialized darts ... that use blanks or compressed air to propel the darts.  i.e. Someone didn't just pop some special ammo into a typical gun to get a tranquilizer round; they used a special gun with special darts.  (i.e. Different Focus, entirely...)
 

I've read about the Heizer PKO45's. The 8lb SA trigger is kind of a turn-off, but the 0.8" thickness is a selling point for those who want to pack .45 ACP in a slim package.  It will be interesting to see what the 9mm varietal's dimensions are, since modern 9mm single-stack offerings have been at the 0.9" thickness for nearly a decade, already.