Surrealone

Given that what I suggested as the bare minimum was "Hero Designer plus the HERO System 6th Edition Bundle: Character Creation/Combat and Adventuring PDF", my instinctive response to your query is: I believe so.  Of course, I can't be certain...

I meant that in terms of both financial cost AND character creation rules/CP costs for character creation.  Key to this is that if you turn on certain Hero Designer options, you basically have martial maneuvers, advantages, and limitations from most of the 6e material (including CC, FHC, etc. with the APG's obviously excepted) … and you can also kick it into 5e mode and set options within it that have the vast bulk of the 5e character creation rules/CP costs (including things from Star Hero, Fantasy Hero, The Ultimate Speedster/Brick/Martial Artist, etc.)
 
I vehemently disagree with this.  The reason I disagree is that the Striking Appearance talent as implemented in 5e and later (as a replacement for COM) results in an infinitely more appropriate and useful ability on the character sheet when it comes to appearance-based playability.  It is built as: +5 PRE (5 Active Points), Only For Interaction Skill Roll And Presence Attack Bonuses Where Appearance Might Be A Factor (-1) (total cost: 3 (rounded up to allow for difference between “all characters” and “limited group of characters”).

This means that in 5e and later you can still effectively do the equivalent of Drain to COM … despite COM having been replaced by Striking Appearance … by simply performing a Drain to PRE with the SFX of making the target uglier to onlookers. I see no downside to the Striking Appearance, at all, especially since Striking Appearance tends to see much more acknowledgement/use from most GMs than COM ever did, gameplay-wise.
 
Probably not; Duke Bushido is pretty reasonable … unlike some of the people I believer were engaged in said long and bitter arguments!


 

I'd use Summon to do this … specifically with a limitation that requires a nearby adult (akin to a MacGyver-like gadgeteer who can use any OAF for his/her gadgetry) … in addition to the 'arrives under own power' limitation … and a limited form (meaning -1 instead of -2) of 'no conscious control' impacting only the effects of the Summon such that the GM, not the kid, would control the super hero.  The Summon SFX would, of course, be that the nearby adult becomes a super hero (perhaps even doing the Superman thing to run and rip off the Clark Kent costume).
 
For Advantages, I think Amicable would probably make sense, as well as IPE.  
 
This approach would entail the super hero always being the same in terms of powers and the like … at least as I'd build it.  You could certainly go for a class of beings, but I think that gets unnecessarily hard in terms of GM work required to execute it.  I also tend to think it'd be more interesting for the same super to always show up when the kid's around, just because it makes for an interesting plot hook once someone picks up on it.  (And, of course, the kid probably has his/her favourite hero and that's who s/he's likely steadily wishing to be present, cheering on, etc.)

What rules have been cited that were not in 5e?  Martial Arts has not changed much since (IIRC) 3e, when we moved to "Pay your STR and get all 5 martial maneuvers; pay a further half your STR to add half your STR to their damage/effects:" to purchasing specific maneuvers. 
 
In particular, I believe the minimum 10 point investment in maneuvers has always been there.

He could very readily apply the following to the reserve: Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations; -1/4) … and then give each slot a -1/2 limitation. There's nothing esoteric about that, at all, by the way … and it's in line with his (more than reasonable) Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4).  Frankly, he should have given that a value of -1/2 (instead of -1/4), since the very same limitation (i.e. HTH Only … and its equivalent: Ranged Only) is applied by RAW, itself, to certain things at -1/2 value.
 
The limitation (at -1/2) is absolutely appropriate on the OCV, DCV, and STR slots.  It's probably worth only -1/4 on the HA and KA slots since the HTH piece isn't the limiting part, there; instead it's the Standard Maneuvers portion of his phraseology that would matter for the HA and KA slots …. since they are already HTH.  Why? Because limiting them to only HTH Standard Maneuvers means you can't use them to augment non-standard maneuvers (which would mean it couldn't apply to martial maneuvers, optional maneuvers, and the like … which is, indeed, limiting in most combats and, thus, worth something).  Thus, he'd be good to go on all slots except the KA slot, where he'd need to come up with another -1/4 limitation … perhaps Incantations: Must Make An Audible Kiai (-1/4) … to represent having to produce a loud shout when delivering a killing strike designed to do body to, say, break a board, a bone, or whatever.
 
You seem to be trying very hard to find fault with Deadman's angle on this rather than trying equally as hard to see what he's saying.  The man has a solid point, IMHO. 
 
Also, the bare minimum, cost-wise, required to play Hero is (wait for it) … Hero Designer plus the HERO System 6th Edition Bundle: Character Creation/Combat and Adventuring PDF.  Going this route is actually cheaper than locating and procuring hardcopies of 6e1 and 6e2 while providing far more options, build-wise, thanks to HD's incorporation of things beyond 6e1 and 6e2.  (And if you noticed, neither 6e1 nor 6e2 are available on this site for purchase.  If you can locate hardcopies, they'll cost a pile!) I suppose you could try to go the Champions Complete route … but as I've already noted in other threads, it's missing a number of things and, thus, not actually complete … especially since no corrective errata has been posted, to my knowledge.

Enjoy!

You guys are basically arguing over a single digit number of points.  That's generally a waste of time, as there isn't a game system out there that can balance things with that degree of accuracy.  Not do that and offer lots of different character build options.
 
The primary factor affecting game balance is going to be what the GM allows in his game.  In heroic games, single digit balancing issues could theoretically have an impact (if you only have 150 points, a 6 point difference is small but still there).  But those games have less flexibility in allowed builds, and anyway available equipment is going to be a much bigger influencing factor.  In superheroic games the differences are so small that it's not even really noticeable.
 
I think there's a myth that Champions players want to believe in, that somewhere out there is the perfect balance point that can be achieved if only we make this little rule change.  That myth is harmful because it makes players focus on very minor issues, and eventually that affects the next version of the rules.

The bare minimum to play would be Fantasy Hero Complete. FHC even has Ranged Martial Arts in it while Champions Complete doesn’t.

I think the issue is that you seem to think someone has indicated that a muscular karate guy (who is slower, often fewer martial maneuvers … but much higher defenses) is less ofa karate guy than a wiry, fast karate guy with a ton of maneuvers … when, in fact, no one has indicated that, at all.  Rather, what's been indicated is that they are two different archteypes … as represented by very different builds and point expenditures.
 
As to Gnome's question about a speedster, it is, of course, a different archtetype with its own, different builds and point expenditures as compared with scrappers and martial artists.  It's probably best exemplified by comparing Bruce Lee to The Flash.  Where Bruce Lee is, perhaps, representative of the pinnacle of human speed and dexterity combined with martial techniques, the Flash's speed is superhuman and rather than relying on martial technique, all of his powers derive entirely from his speed. Can Bruce Lee move so fast soas to travel through time?  No.  And Can The Flash perform a Martial Disarm or a Nerve Strike?  No.

I think you get the idea when using some common sense to compare the builds associated with the various archetypes as to what is a speedster, a brick, a scrapper, a martial artist, a flying energy projector, etc.  Trying to define a razor thin dividing line is, of course, an impossible task, so I'm not going to try because I think good, old-fashioned common sense is adequate.

I don't think that Martial Arts is really unbalancing at all.  It is available to everyone so that right there means it is pretty balanced.  Consider the Multipower below which could be used instead of Martial Arts to pretty awesome effect.
 
16   Martial Arts:  Multipower, 20-point reserve,  (20 Active Points); all slots Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4)
     3V   Accurate:  +4 OCV (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4)
     3V   Evasive:  +4 DCV (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4)
     3V   Strong:  +20 STR (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4)
     3V   Powerful:  Hand-To-Hand Attack +4d6 (20 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4), Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4)
     3V   Lethal:  Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (2d6 w/STR) (20 Active Points); Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4)
 
In this example the character could use any one of the slots to bolster his HTH prowess or mix and match them (because they are Variable slots) to great effect.
 
Martial Strike - +2d6, +2 DCV when performing Strike
Fast Strike - +2 OCV, +2d6 when performing Strike
Martial Block - +2 OCV, +2 DCV when performing Block
Martial Dodge - +4 DCV (Total of +7!) when performing Dodge
Martial Grab - +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +10 STR when performing Grab
Offensive Strike - +4d6 when performing Strike
Killing Strike - 2d6KA when performing Strike
 
If you want to make it even more powerful you could drop the limitation and voila!  You have the ability to do a Flying Dodge.  Sure, it costs more than your average Martial Arts package but it doesn't have the Negatives on any of the maneuvers either.
 
Just my $.02,
 
Deadman

I'm actually basing it on the vast bulk of the martial artists (not 'scrappers', not 'bricks', but actual 'martial artists') I've seen written up.

Per your quoted text, you appear to be fixated on DCV being the only means to avoid being hit when, in fact, it isn't.  (Hint: Block!)  Show me a player with a martial artist character that doesn't use martial block or similar mechanics (a la Deflection) to actively avoid damage rather than relying on adjusted DCV … and I'll show you a martial artist that spends more time unconscious than one who blocks at appropriate times.
 
That's not the only option, by the way. Flying Dodge is in the mix, too … and it can be used to full move beyond HTH range while simultaneously adding +4 to DCV. If the martial artist successfully exits HTH range, then there's not even an attack roll to be made (much less a damage roll). However, in the off-chance the martial artist is still in range when executing the maneuver, then his/her DCV is cranked (better than a regular dodge, but not as high as if martial dodging).  
 
I think you get the idea -- there's more to not getting hit than just raw DCV; smart play is required.

This weapon was the height of technological progress, Bach when Espionage, and Danger International were things. I knew about the weapon, but my assumptions about its eventual non adoption in1989, were wrong. I had assumed it was propellant difficulties, like the Hughes Caseless riflemof 1969. Though propellant issues were a factor in the delay of this weapon, they were solved by the formal acceptance of the weapon into Bundeswehr service, acceptance, but not adoption. 
 

That's not at all what I see with Multiple Attack.  Cinematically, it could be Elektra attacking twice in a phase with a pair of Okinawan sai, or it could be a cop double-tapping his opponent with a pair of .40 caliber rounds per his self-defense training … or even a right hook and left cross combo from Wolverine.

i.e. Two (or more, if desired) skilled attacks of some kind … where neither Autofire nor AoE make sense for the desired effect.  That's the niche filled by Multiple Attack and the skills surrounding it.

But you probably DO expect lasers to take the Beam limitation (unless they're AoE or some other sort of non-beam approach) … and probably also expect them to melt/destroy the transparent objects through which they are shooting unless bought with Indirect (since shooting through things without harming them is an advantage … hence what Indirect is for, right)? 
 
Oh, I'd fully expect sonic weapons to work in space (since it's not truly a vacuum), albeit very poorly due to the thinness of particles … unless, of course, a limitation was taken to represent a power that doesn't function once a certain thinness of particles in a given volume of space was exceeded.

You do realize that doing less damage up close and more at range … flies in the face of classical mechanics … wherein a hurled or fired missile has more time for gravity, wind, friction, etc. to act upon it and slow it the longer it's in the air… thereby reducing kinetic energy transfer (aka damage to target) at impact?  I figured I'd ask, since you're basically proposing re-writing the laws of physics in your game … unless, of course, your Samurai Shodown takes place in the vacuum of space outside of any/all measurable forces of gravity.
 
Just a quick sanity check to make sure that's what you're after … before actually trying to tackle doing it.  And, as a reminder, if the above is true for missiles, then you'll likely need to consider doing away with or adjusting gravity effects and the like for certain forms of movement, too -- unless consistency isn't important to the setting.

That's not at all what I see with Multiple Attack.  Cinematically, it could be Elektra attacking twice in a phase with a pair of Okinawan sai, or it could be a cop double-tapping his opponent with a pair of .40 caliber rounds per his self-defense training … or even a right hook and left cross combo from Wolverine.

i.e. Two (or more, if desired) skilled attacks of some kind … where neither Autofire nor AoE make sense for the desired effect.  That's the niche filled by Multiple Attack and the skills surrounding it.

That's not at all what I see with Multiple Attack.  Cinematically, it could be Elektra attacking twice in a phase with a pair of Okinawan sai, or it could be a cop double-tapping his opponent with a pair of .40 caliber rounds per his self-defense training … or even a right hook and left cross combo from Wolverine.

i.e. Two (or more, if desired) skilled attacks of some kind … where neither Autofire nor AoE make sense for the desired effect.  That's the niche filled by Multiple Attack and the skills surrounding it.

Because when you pull and fire a gun, it's hardly 'inobvious'... and an IAF remains inobvious even during use.  A great parallel example would be a cell-phone vs. Bluetooth-enabled Airpods.  The cell phone would be an OAF (much like a gun) because it's inobvious when vibrating in your pocket but quite obvious and quite accessible when it's in hand and being used ….  while the Bluetooth-enabled Airpods would be an IAF because they remain inobvious throughout use (unlike a gun).
 
More important, I think, is the fact that concealing a weapon on one's body is absolutely a skill … and is an example of why we have Concealment in the book.

Why is it not as simple as just using what's in the book to properly simulate what actually happens when someone, you know, conceals (hint: skill roll) a gun on his/her person … rather than taking some hackneyed approach with an IAF that is actually obvious while being used … and handwaving when you need not do so?

Because when you pull and fire a gun, it's hardly 'inobvious'... and an IAF remains inobvious even during use.  A great parallel example would be a cell-phone vs. Bluetooth-enabled Airpods.  The cell phone would be an OAF (much like a gun) because it's inobvious when vibrating in your pocket but quite obvious and quite accessible when it's in hand and being used ….  while the Bluetooth-enabled Airpods would be an IAF because they remain inobvious throughout use (unlike a gun).
 
More important, I think, is the fact that concealing a weapon on one's body is absolutely a skill … and is an example of why we have Concealment in the book.

Why is it not as simple as just using what's in the book to properly simulate what actually happens when someone, you know, conceals (hint: skill roll) a gun on his/her person … rather than taking some hackneyed approach with an IAF that is actually obvious while being used … and handwaving when you need not do so?

Most people. 
 
 
Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, environmentally conscious autoduelling:
 
 

Disguising a weapon is very, very different from simply concealing it on one's person … and it's the latter situation where I felt the IAF approach is hackneyed and handwaving.  (The former makes complete sense … and RAW's examples make it clear as to the intent.)
 
Based on RAW and those examples, I absolutely agree that a disguised weapon (i.e. a weapon caused to look like something other than what it is) would qualify as an IAF.  RAW's examples which you included in your citation (thank you!) provide perfect clarification as to what is meant by "disguised or concealed weapons." Notice in those examples the gun looks like a cane (cane gun) … and the blaster looks like a glove (because it's concealed inside one).  Both of those are clearly examples of a weapon disguised to look like something else, with concealment (inside the glove … or inside the cane) being used to achieve the disguise.
 
Concealment for the purpose of disguise logic will only go so far, as I think we can all agree that concealing a handgun inside a glove can disguise it as a glove … but concealing a handgun inside of a coat pocket or a purse doesn't disguise it as a coat or a purse (instead it merely conceals the handgun from view).  So far, this thread hasn't been about disguising a weapon; it's been about a weapon being "hidden on a person carrying it" (to use the original poster's exact words) -- hence my stance on the IAF.  
 
There is, of course, some novelty in the disguise (to achieve concealment) approach you've mentioned; it's fairly out of the box thinking (which, interestingly, also happens to be illegal in a number of states in the real-world USA).  If the objective is to disguise a weapon rather than merely conceal it, you've certainly proposed a valid approach for such disguise.
 
 

Because when you pull and fire a gun, it's hardly 'inobvious'... and an IAF remains inobvious even during use.  A great parallel example would be a cell-phone vs. Bluetooth-enabled Airpods.  The cell phone would be an OAF (much like a gun) because it's inobvious when vibrating in your pocket but quite obvious and quite accessible when it's in hand and being used ….  while the Bluetooth-enabled Airpods would be an IAF because they remain inobvious throughout use (unlike a gun).
 
More important, I think, is the fact that concealing a weapon on one's body is absolutely a skill … and is an example of why we have Concealment in the book.

Why is it not as simple as just using what's in the book to properly simulate what actually happens when someone, you know, conceals (hint: skill roll) a gun on his/her person … rather than taking some hackneyed approach with an IAF that is actually obvious while being used … and handwaving when you need not do so?

The conundrum you present is one that you, the GM, must resolve to your own satisfaction.
 
If I were in your shoes I would resolve it by requiring a Physical Complication to go with a one-armed Distinctive Feature, specifically because no matter how adept one becomes at using one arm, there are just some things you can't do without having both of them.  Examples include: bear-hugging a large person without use of any tools/assistance; properly wielding a polearm without use of any tools/assistance; playing with a Chinese finger trap using only your own hands; jumping rope without use of tools/assistance or fixed end-points for the rope; properly signaling people at distance using semaphore; playing most stringed instruments that are built for people with two arms/hands without using assistance, tools, specially-built instruments, or one's feet; etc.
 
In order the meet the player half-way, I would then work with the player to properly set the level of the Physical Complication that represents how often the player wants the above situations to come up, and I would be unwilling to concede to the idea that such situations would never come up (which is what the player appears to want … based on the Distinctive Feature being the only angle the player is taking to the character being one-armed) … because I would want to keep my options open and I would also want the player to be a bit more realistic about what it means to be one-armed.

I'd love to see an effective/efficient way to play Hero/Champions online … with minimal work to make it happen on the part of the GM or players.  For context, MapTool is excellent if your GM builds Hero-centric macros and takes the (fairly sizeable amount of) time to do good maps and such for the story,  but there's a lot of up-front work on the GM's end to do so -- certainly more than there would be for a Hero-specific tool.  Roll20 has a following, too, but, again, it's something that someone's got to bang (with a fairly sizeable maul) into shape for use with Hero/Champions.
 
The ability to drop a .HDC file into place for an online game to upload a character to it, as well as produce/use  maps quickly as well track rolls for hits, skill checks, etc … while tracking SPD, DEX, stun effects, DMG, etc during a combat … -without- the GM having to work his tail off to make it happen or bang some non-Hero tool into usefulness with Hero  might breathe new life into Hero due to more people playing via such a tool.
 
This, of course, wasn't listed in the poll … and adding it after the fact wouldn't exactly be fair to such a listing since people have already voted.  Hence why I note I, here.

Well you said 'immune to mental entangle' without any specifications on the build.  Thus, I reasonably took this to mean immunity to all mental entangles since a mental entangle build was not provided by you for us to use in constructing a defensive power to thwart it.  You then suggested something that would clearly NOT be immune to all mental entangles, which is why I pointed out the issue.
 
If you are now clarifying that you want a power built to provide immunity to one specific, well-defined mental entangle (which is what your quoted text, above, appears to suggest), please supply the mental entangle build so we can see how many dice it has in addition to its advantages and limitations.

Per 6e1 p193:
Dispelling Incoming Attacks
A character can use Dispel to protect himself from incoming attacks, but he must have a Held Action. Assuming the Dispel applies to the attack, he uses his Held Action to “attack” the incoming attack with his Dispel. He rolls his Dispel dice (he doesn’t have to make an Attack Roll, though this does constitute an Attack Action). He Dispels the attack if the total of the Dispel dice exceeds the Active Points in the attack. The Power Defense of the character making the incoming attack (if any) doesn’t apply to reduce the Dispel effect roll.
 
Thus, to answer the original question:
No, you cannot Abort (key word: abort) to Dispel per RAW … and I would not permit it.  Key to this is that it requires an attack roll and, thus, is an Attack Action (i.e. not a defensive action).  This is why a Held Action is required …