Surrealone

For those heroes with military backgrounds who have already transitioned to the M17 … and for those using the SIG 320 series … I bring you the Flux Defense MP17. This drop-in upgrade for either of the aforementioned allows you to utilize your existing duty magazines and firearm more accurately at longer ranges … without needing to field new weapons or acquire new training/muscle memory. In addition, the MP17 is holsterable in a mated retention holster that is suppressor-ready.

Available for $399 in both SBR and pistol brace versions to suit all your tacticool needs, the Flux Defense MP17 has got you covered.  (Some assembly required. Optional $199 holster not included. Tax stamp for SBR version not included. Ammunition not included. Common sense not included.)
 
 

For those heroes with military backgrounds who have already transitioned to the M17 … and for those using the SIG 320 series … I bring you the Flux Defense MP17. This drop-in upgrade for either of the aforementioned allows you to utilize your existing duty magazines and firearm more accurately at longer ranges … without needing to field new weapons or acquire new training/muscle memory. In addition, the MP17 is holsterable in a mated retention holster that is suppressor-ready.

Available for $399 in both SBR and pistol brace versions to suit all your tacticool needs, the Flux Defense MP17 has got you covered.  (Some assembly required. Optional $199 holster not included. Tax stamp for SBR version not included. Ammunition not included. Common sense not included.)
 
 

Funny!  I say that because my idea of the perfect RPG system entails exactly one book ... of 400 pages or less... resting on a coffee table with no other materials around it.  That's actually -why- I was drawn to Champions: 1st through 3rd Editions were tiny and 4th Edition ended up being exactly what I was looking for, as one book absolutely could do it all.
 
I think it got kind of ridiculous with 5th Edition (too big) .... and the 2-volume 6th set is absurd in its verbosity ... so colour me pleased to see Champions Complete, since it was a return to what I felt Hero System should be.  You just shouldn't need a crate of books or a directory full of PDF's to play any RPG, IMHO.

This seems like a clear case for Multiform -- but it sounds like you're trying to avoid it.
 
There's another option, which is to start at roughly human-sized … and use Shrinking to get to key-chain sized … and use Growth to get to Huge.  Make the Shrinking @0END … and make the Growth cost END (for the very same balance reasons you mentioned) … and provide enough END to run it (END is cheap!).

As discussed on 6E1 263-64, knowledge of the target’s location depends on the strength of the Mind Scan lock-on:  at Greater Than EGO, the attacker simply knows the direction to the target, all the way up to EGO + 20, in which case the attacker knows the target’s exact location. (The GM may also provide further information, such as “He’s not on ground level,” depending upon the strength of the lock-on, as discussed on 6E1 263.)
 
Me fully getting into the complex subject of “tracking” a mind via Mind Scan will have to wait for APG3, so consider these general guidelines to tide everyone over until then:
 
1. To “track” a mind that a character has a Mind Scan lock-on to, he must have a lock-on that’s at least EGO +10 strong. A weaker lock-on than that breaks as soon as the target begins to move substantially. Determining what “substantially” means is up to the GM, but I generally consider it to be a significant form/amount of movement. Walking between floors in a building doesn’t count; nor does walking around in a small, defined area (such as a corner park or a restaurant). On the other hand, getting into a car and driving away, the target activating his Flight and zooming off, or teleporting halfway across the city probably are “substantial” enough to break the lock-on. The attacker does not know which direction the target started to travel when the lock-on broke. (Alternately, depending on the situation the GM might let him learn that one bit of information if he succeeds with an EGO Roll at the same penalty to the character’s OMCV from the table on 6E1 261.)
 
2. If a character has a Mind Scan lock-on of EGO +10 or greater, he is able to track the target as he moves, with a few caveats.
 
First, if the target moves into an area with fewer (or the same number of) people than the area where the attacker established the Mind Scan lock-on, the attacker can automatically “track” the target without having to make any rolls. (This assumes, however, that the target’s moving at a fairly slow rate of speed, such as walking, or driving in a car at normal urban speeds. If the target’s moving with “significant” speed, see the third point, below, for further guidelines.)
 
Second, if the target moves into an area with more people than the area he was in when the attacker established the lock-on, the attacker must make another EGO Combat Roll (at the new, harsher, modifier) to maintain the lock-on (regardless of the target’s velocity). If he succeeds, the lock-on remains intact; if he fails, the lock-on breaks (but the attacker is aware of roughly what direction the target was traveling).
 
Depending on how fast the target’s traveling, the attacker may have to make EGO Attack Rolls on each of his (the attacker’s) Phases to maintain the lock-on. If appropriate, the GM may add up all the people in the areas through which the target traveled since the attacker’s last Phase and use that larger figure to determine the OMCV penalty.
 
Third, if the target travels with “significant” velocity — such as activating FTL Travel, driving at high rates of speed (60 MPH or more), or Teleporting over a metropolitan (or longer) distance — then the GM may rule that the lock-on breaks automatically. At the very least, the attacker should suffer a large penalty to the OMCV roll to maintain the lock-on:  double (or more) the penalty listed in the Mind Scan Modifiers Table on 6E1 261.
 
3. In any case described above where the attacker has to make an EGO Combat Roll to maintain his Mind Scan lock-on, if he succeeds with that roll he does not need to re-roll his Effect Roll — all he’s doing in this case is maintaining the existing Effect Roll. However, he may choose to re-roll the Effect Roll (perhaps because he hopes to establish a stronger lock-on to make it easier to keep tracking the target). If he does so, he must accept and use that second result.
 
I think that covers everything in your question. If not, please PM me or post a follow-up. Thanx!

Regarding the first sentence of the quoted text, it's not that said diehards do that 'first' … they do it because it's part of the game, too -- per the tutelage of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness found in 2e.

i.e. Balancing and optimizing is just another challenge for some -- one that comes neither before nor after character concept … and, instead, is considered evenly with it.  After all, the more efficient the build, the closer one can come to concept (because it's more points spent toward the concept).

As for your question in the quoted text - my answer would be: 0 CP (assuming that the character would receive 0 CP for selling off OMCV or not be permitted to do so).  After all, if a sell-back is not limiting in the game, then a buy-up isn't advantageous -- meaning it's just fluff on a page and potentially interesting story … with no mechanical impact.
 

Heh.  Thought I'd check. 
 
I did the research (Google spreadsheet) quite some time ago; started looking through PDFs, remembered the spreadsheet, and saved myself a bunch of time.   

I like #2 the best, as it seems the cleanest and most representative of what you describe (among the proposed approaches) while being less hand-wavey (IMHO) than #3 (due to reliance on Ablative which, per RAW, is specifically for STUN or BOD damage IIRC) … and because #1 seems un-necessarily convoluted.
 
I don't particularly care for the Force Wall or Damage Negation suggestions, either, because I think both of them would need to rely on Ablative, too - in order to properly represent the reductions associated with each sacrifice. 

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

Frankly, spending points on something for which you could get points back a la Complications … isn't exactly something to brag about when considering the teaching of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (also part of the game, as you may recall).
 
 
This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

The need for numbers around this to enable role-play … while bashing the mechanics of Striking Appearance … makes no sense.  People don't need stats to role-play.  

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

Frankly, spending points on something for which you could get points back a la Complications … isn't exactly something to brag about when considering the teaching of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (also part of the game, as you may recall).
 
 
This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

The need for numbers around this to enable role-play … while bashing the mechanics of Striking Appearance … makes no sense.  People don't need stats to role-play.  

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

Frankly, spending points on something for which you could get points back a la Complications … isn't exactly something to brag about when considering the teaching of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (also part of the game, as you may recall).
 
 
This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

The need for numbers around this to enable role-play … while bashing the mechanics of Striking Appearance … makes no sense.  People don't need stats to role-play.  

Mental Block (i.e. mental-based Block maneuver) ... as was already pointed out by dsatow.  (I've never experienced a GM who didn't allow those -- and allowing them does NOT require changing the physical constants of the world or introduction of maguffins.) Use of EGO/5 dice to try to break down a Mental Paralysis requires one to first hit said Mental Paralysis …. which, per RAW, has a DMCV of 3 (same DMCV that hexes have). Thus, with an OMCV of 1, the individual trying to break out of the Mental Paralysis must roll 9- to hit it … before being able to try to break out of it … while someone with an OMCV of 3 would need to roll 11- to hit it.  END is, of course spent whether the attack against the Mental Paralysis hits or misses, so the character rolling 9- to hit will likely burn more Phases and END trying to get out of the Mental Paralysis than a character rolling 11- unless, of course, you've changed the physical constants of the world by failing to require a successful attack roll prior to allowing a damage/effect roll.  
As a reminder, the minimum value of characteristics in 6e is 1 … whether bought down, drained, etc.

They both have starting values of 3 - costing 0 points for that starting value, so there's the equivalence.  And when buying them up or selling them back, OMCV is cheaper than OCV, so deviation in any direction (up or down) already has any perceived disparity between them … accounted for.
 
If you don't happen to like that particular accounting, then that's certainly your own bias showing as it pertains to the value of points of OMCV versus points of OCV -- and you're absolutely entitled to it.  However, if you're going to be biased about it, then I suggest at least owning your bias by being consistent about it.  To wit, if you see OMCV on a non-mentalist as value-less (i.e. worth nothing) and, thus, will give 0 points for a buy-down to 1 (because you, the GM, will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game) …  then it also logically follows that the same non-mentalist should be able to set OMCV to 100 for 0 cost, because you, the GM will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game.  Thus, if you're consistent about your stance of OMCV being completely valueless on non-mentalists, you should let any of them set the value of OMCV to whatever they want for a cost of 0 CP, since it just won't come up in your game due to your own lack of action/input on the subject.
 
This is, of course, completely unfair to mentalists in your game (presuming you have them) since THEY can't do the same, but it's your bias, not RAW, with which you're wrestling...

Personally, I think a better approach is to set the starting values of both OMCV and DMCV to 1 for all characters in your game.  This completely disallows sell-backs while affecting both non-mentalists and mentalists equally -- making it far more fair while still catering to your own personal bias. Moreover, it doesn't put you, the GM, in a position where you're saying 'no you can't do that' just because of your own bias against the buy-downs of OMCV using the already-accounted-for cost delta between OMCV and OCV.
 
 

For the record: I like SA over comeliness but I will try to answer Surreal's questions.
 
How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent?
People like to rank characters.  Who is stronger, who is faster, who is etc.  I found this out when playing the Amber Role Playing Game that people would bid their stats higher and higher just to be number 1.
 
How (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent?
To be honest, the most I seen was cat-tiness.  Basically calling other characters and NPCs dogs because that 30 comeliness didn't stack up to their comeliness of 40.  Even the comeliness 32 would look down on the comeliness 30 NPC.  BTW: None of them had the psych lim "B!T@#" or anything similar.
 
How, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM?
Its not on the characteristic section as far as I can tell.  The major argument seems to be that because its not on the characteristic section but can conceivably be called a statistic of the character is what is causing the problem.

How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent? And as a follow-up, how (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent? Moreover, how, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM?

I look forward to your responses on all three questions. (This should be good...)

Surreal

The sort of one-upmanship massey mentioned is, by the way, achievable with … (wait for it) … Striking Appearance.

My first question would be "why is your character deficient compared to average people?"  If people who have no mental powers are mOCV 1, that would be the starting number.  And making mCVs start at 1, or even 0, would be a great solution for "the stat I will never make any use of".
 
My second question would be "You are OK with this cropping up on occasion, and being a PITA for your character, right?  About as often and impeding (in combination) as a 5 point complication." 
 
If your player wanted a 5 point Complication for being unable to understand the Internet, would that be OK?  Seems like it's equally limiting for a WW II Super.
 
Gadgets that target with OMCV?  What about a character who moves us all to the DreamScape - no more OCV and DCV, you get your mOCV and mDCV instead.  I am sure that could appear in many golden-age comics.

As far as I am concerned, what you wrote is true ONLY in a world with a short-sighted/lazy GM. I say this because by selling back a non-mentalist's OMCV, a player is basically indicating to the GM that s/he expects the issue to come up -- and a GM who isn't lazy/short-sighted can easily accommodate by introducing independent foci that non-mentalists can use ... which someone with a 1 OMCV would be worse than other non-mentalists at using.

So, the reduction is, indeed, limiting … unless the GM is too lazy/short-sighted to make sure it's limiting.

With that in mind, Gnome's counter-point is spot-on -- i.e. if a mentalist sold OCV down to 1, the same issue would crop up - the mentalist would suck at using foci others could readily use.  IMHO, treatment of the selling of OMCV to 1 any differently than the selling of OCV to 1 … just reveals an underlying bias in the GM and/or the players in question.

 

Ok, so I agree with you here, which is probably why I'm obsessing over it! I learned Champions the same time you did, back in the '80s with 2e (or maybe 1e, I'm not really sure since it was all taught to me, but he first book I bought was the 2e rules). Things were simpler then, but they were also super heroic, and you payed for everything you wanted your character to do. The heroic level stuff has changed that, and the use of "free" equipment has created a problem about how to balance things that cost character points with things that don't. See the link that I just posted in my response to KillerShrike above. He breaks this down brilliantly. Anyway, my old self would have just created a more expensive Contact and called it "I know a guy for just the right problem," and then probably rolled it over from game to game to be a different guy. 
 
But the rules for the Perk have gotten more complex, and understandably so. There's a big difference between knowing a guy in Carbondale, IL who can fix my car, and randomly knowing a guy in Shanghai who can fix my plane. And there's a difference between knowing a guy who can fix my plane, and knowing the owner of Boeing, who can just lend me a different plane. So the cost varies. This means that a dozen contacts are not actually the same as one who can do it all. The dozen contacts may be two points apiece, while the owner of Boeing may be 12 points (I can't remember the actual cost, but I'll run with your example), but what they actually have access to is vastly different. So the problem I'm running into is finding a balance between specific contacts who are very useful the entire campaign, and a rogues' gallery of random contacts who fit just the right purpose maybe one or two times in a campaign. How many should I have to pay for, since there is a difference in quality and quantity. Of course your point is spot on: why am I asking anyone else since I'm the GM?! I'm just thinking in terms of fairness for the other players who may also want to play a Contact every one in a while, or use their own Language Skill and not defer to the woman who knows 12 languages. 
 
Duke, I know your position on the 6e rules compared to the 3e rules you play. Everything has been adjudicated to very specific and minute detail. I know this frustrates you, or maybe just bemuses you as we get all nitpicky about the minutiae. But I'll contend this: the rules became longer and more inclusive, and more granular, exactly because there are people like us who can debate the rules five times over and find twelve different solutions. I emphasize that not to be argumentative, but to point out that we are the reason the rules have gotten so detailed: we ask detailed questions! Also, people have found lots of increasingly more complex and unfair ways to unbalance games by manipulating the earlier, more vague, rules. In 30 years after the first edition of Champions came out, a lot of things were learned, but only because there were people like us pushing at the edges. There were also people who were hacking away at some of the assumptions of the game to the extent that the rules had to be more tightly and clearly defined. As with all debates, once the terms become more granular and more clearly defined, there is the opportunity for more edge cases to show up which require more adjudication, and on and on and on. And now we have 6e, the most complete set of rules so far to the point of near-absurdity, but nearly all the problems have been considered in those rules. Mostly because, over the years, people like us have been asking questions and pushing at the edges for answers that are fair, balanced, and practical. I look at the 6e rules as basically a collection of all the interesting and relevant forum posts over the years. In other words, the collective wisdom not just of Steve Long, but of everyone who asks challenging questions about the rules. 
 
Anyway, that's not a critique of you, Duke. I've actually considered going back to 3e just for sanity's sake. But I also have an appreciation for the elegance of the 6e rules and what they've done to try to balance all the elements throughout the game. So for now I'm just trying to master those rules before I try anything else. 
 
Thanks for reminding me that I'm creating my own problem for myself! Sometimes I need a boot to the head to sort of reset where my attention is focused.  I need to keep it simple, not just for the new players I'm trying to teach the rules, but for my own damn self! 

That works well enough right up to the point where Captain Contacts with his shining 33 PRE whips out his electronic rolodex of 15,234 contacts because he "knows a guy".  Since that's a very viable ability/concept, would you, the GM, shoot it down?  If not, would you, the GM, flesh out all 15,234 of them in advance?  Or would you, the GM, think a pool is in order … with throw-aways making logical sense?

While Captain Contacts is an extreme/absurd example, it's this sort of thinking (to a lesser extent, of course) that makes Resource Points a thing.  i.e. Some contacts -should- be willy-nilly because they just aren't important outside of being one-time plot movers.

I personally feel there's a vast world of difference between a pool of physical or social resources a character can access …. and a pool of things a character KNOWS.  Key to this is that foci get taken, lost or broken; contacts don't always respond; followers aren't always around; vehicles break down or are destroyed; bases get sabotaged or must be abandoned; other misc perks (like driver's license, concealed carry license, etc.) change depending on locality; etc.  … whereas what one knows and can (or can't) recall (such as Area Knowledge, Science Skills, Professional Skills, etc.) … is what one knows and can (or can't) recall.

For this reason, I do not see any Skills of any kind making sense within Resource Pools.  Certainly if you want to house rule it that way, you can, but skills are Skills, i.e. they're not Resources as Resources are explained in APG1.  Both I and Gnome have already provided you with the conventional way GM's handle large numbers of AK's -- which is to say: they lump them into broad categories, provide a roll level that makes sense for the character when appropriate modifiers are in play, and then work from there.  That's what I think you should do with the AK's -- figure out which regions the character would have knowledge of … and to what extent … and buy the relevant AK's appropriately.

As for languages, the Universal Translator path is a solid one if the character will have perfect, colloquial fluency with literacy in 4 or more languages.  James Bond is fluent in French, Italian, German and Russian, has a solid grasp of Greek, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese … and has a degree in Oriental languages.  Think he paid for a bunch of languages?  Nope, he's got Universal Translator with some limitations, I bet … and likely has Oriental Languages bought as a Science Skill as a cherry on top.
 
 

Remember, the idea is to be able to capture the "I know a guy/gal" concept … so from a Resource Point/Pool perspective, every contact is a floating one from scenario to scenario.  Also, from a storyline perspective, the specifics of Contact X who got called on mission Y just aren't all that important (long-term) unless the contact is (or might in the future become) a recurring one.  We keep track of recurring contacts … but they're ultimately akin to a Power in a Variable Power Pool -- i.e. just a pre-arranged configuration that serves a specific purpose/function and has a specific cost/value.  
 
 
Easy enough.  Build the Resource Pool for Followers/Contacts ("Gun Runner Contacts" ??), give the character Well-Connected since you see him being exactly that, and then pre-design some Contacts.  Doing so will cause them to be listed out in a numbered list beneath Well-Connected. When you name each, put the real cost in parens, brackets, braces, or some other indicator (so that you will know how many real points it is … after adjustment by Well-Connected … for pool use ... just by looking at the name)… and then as a final step, add a Custom Adder to each Contact whose value is negative that of the Contact's active cost (i.e. if active cost of the Contact is 5, the Custom Adder is -5); doing so will result in the Contacts now costing 0 CP on the character sheet ... while leaving you with pre-built contacts that are listed out with costs readily usable alongside a pool.
 
Since the entire point of such a pool is to avoid limiting the character to just a few contacts … in order to represent a rolodex (or head) full of them without the character spending every CP s/he has on contacts, I wouldn't limit the character to only the pre-built items. Rather, I would strongly encourage the player to come up with new contacts that make sense for the scope of the pool.  If you're worried about being taken by surprise, then have the player run new ideas past you outside of game time such that you have to pre-approve them.  However, if you're the sort of GM who can take a NPC concept and run with on the fly (give it a name, role play it, etc.) as well as make a solid ruling on the spot, you might find it more fun to just roll with new contacts as they come at you.
 
Your international son of a gun runner probably warrants a Miscellaneous Resource Point pool, too -- to obtain IDs, passports, diplomatic immunity, and all the other things one needs (which change from country to country and shipment to shipment) to move arms under the radar.  Just a thought.
 
 
To my knowledge there isn't a knowledge-centric Resource Pool -- which makes sense, since Knowledge entails what one knows/understands, not what one has at one's fingertips (like guns, vehicles, bases, contacts, etc.).  Thus, unless you cobble something custom together for the AK's and languages, there's going to have to be some serious point expenditures, there.  If you truly see this character as knowing a crap-ton of languages, Universal Translator limited to only modern communication forms used by humans …. which requires a successful INT roll (whose result determines how well he does or doesn't understand or convey something)… might address your language issue.  It should add some comedy, too, I'd think, when a roll is missed and the character translates "meatballs" into "donkey balls" in some backwater language no one else knows.

As for AK's -- perhaps you have one big one ("The World") with a very high skill roll to which you, the GM, must always apply penalties.  (Because the AK is very, very broad, if the character wanted to know something specific/granular about a backwater place no one's ever heard of, you'd assess a big penalty … and have the character make (or miss) the modified roll to see what s/he does or doesn't know about an area. If the character knows some places better than others, then perhaps you break it down by regions and give the character several such AK's with big numbers -- that you again modify based on granularity of info to which the roll pertains?  (I could see a character knowing North America, Central America, and South America -- but having little knowledge of Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, or Antactica … if they were into running coke.  But if they ran opium, well, that's probably Asia, the Middle East, and North America.  Since dad dealt Arms, I could see North America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.  You get the idea.)

 

In Hero Designer, simply add Resource Points to the sheet.  Once done, drill into what you just added and change the Type from its default (Equipment points) to Follower/Contact Points.  Then, if the GM (presumably you) is giving everyone a starting number of contact points (much like Everyman skills … because everyone knows someone, right?), set the Starting Points to whatever the campaign starting value is.  
 
That's all there is to it. From there, simply increment the 'Levels' of Resource points (in 2pt increments since the cost of Follower/Contact Resource Points is 1CP per 2 RP) to reflect how many Resource Points have been purchased.  There are no lists to manage; nothing needs to be predefined like traditional contacts -- unless, you the GM, want to try to apply the Kit and Armory concepts of Equipment-based resource pools to Follower-contact-based resource pools.

A Follower/Contact Resource Pool helps respresent a character's ability to say, "I know a guy" … and reach out.  Thus, if you had 10 CP tied up in Resource Points for Followers/Contacts, that's a 20pt pool … and your character who is an honourably discharged U.S. Army Captain might pick up the phone and dial a special forces buddy (Very Good Relationship, 14-) that would use 7 pts from the pool.  Next in the same scenario he might dial a General under which s/he served when they were both younger and lower rank (Good relationship, Contact has significant Contacts of his own, Contact has access to major institutions, Organization Contact, 12-) that would use 11pts from the pool.  That's 18 of the 20pt pool used for the scenario, so far. 
 
Note:
It generally helps to give some sort of special effect/theme to the pool … so, in this case, it'd likely be a Military Contacts Resource Pool … and I would name it as such on the sheet -- as that's sort of what justifies the pool I used in my examples, above.  It also works for famous people, rich people, and the like -- with appropriately scoped Contact pools, of course.

The complete rundown on Resource Points and how to manage/use them can be found in APG1 p191.  If you the GM want to pre-define Contacts for pool use, that's certainly up to you … and if there's no unifying theme (a la Military contacts) for the pool, it may be prudent/necessary.  However, with a solid theme for the pool, it may make sense to avoid such definitions.  Totally up to you.  I've seen both ways done, and the less structured, theme-based approach tends to work best (IMHO) when representing a changing cast of contacts.

Example Contact/Follower pool themes I've either used or seen:
Military Contacts Pool Police / Law Enforcement Contacts Pool Masonic Contacts Pool Legal Contacts Pool Press Contacts Pool Mutant Contacts Pool (in a game where mutants were not the norm)
You get the idea.  Remember, villains might have one too (Terrorist Network Contacts Pool?)...
 
Surreal
 
P.S. Well-Connected is highly complimentary to a Contact pool -- especially if the character is prone to using a number of cheaper contacts in a scenario (as opposed to using a big, spendy, organizational contact in the scenario) … as it effectively shaves 1pt off the Contact cost for each Contact manifested via the Pool (as well as any static Contacts the character may have).  Note, however, that Well-Connected must (per RAW) be purchased outside the Resource Pool.