Lee

Another issue you could add to the list would be ricochets. The firearm may not be able to penetrate the hull or bulkheads of the vessel you're on, it might "rattle around a bit". It might not be as bad as Han Solo's blaster bolt when he was in the garbage masher on the Death Star, but it still might not be very fun.

To clarify, I specifically indicated:
 
 
If your rationale is that firearms should  not be restricted due to their defensive uses, and handguns are not useful defensively, why should there be no restrictions on handguns?  Surely not to encourage a false sense of security in owning one. 
 
 
If the purpose is to maintain a well-prepared militia, would you also concur that those owning (or even permitted to own) these arms should also be subject to activation as part of a state or Federal militia?  It's funny how we consider the rights, but not the responsibilities, that those who penned these documents had in mind.  The phrasing of the Second Amendment seems pretty clear that the right to bear arms was not viewed as existing in a vacuum, but rather was directly linked to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

Another issue you could add to the list would be ricochets. The firearm may not be able to penetrate the hull or bulkheads of the vessel you're on, it might "rattle around a bit". It might not be as bad as Han Solo's blaster bolt when he was in the garbage masher on the Death Star, but it still might not be very fun.

I sometimes wonder if we should allow for instant name legal name changes to all mass shooters.
Joe Smith walks into a place and kills as many people as he can to get famous and spread his message?
Joe Smith is now "Cowardly Putz!"
It's on his ID, it's what he'll be called in the Court cases,   if he died while doing his attack, it's on his tombstone.
Reporters will rightly refer to him as Cowardly Putz (Possibly with a number depending on how many shooters have also had their name changed to that)
 
"Cowardly Putz was sentenced to Life today" has a nice ring to it.
 
 

For a monomolecular sword, I'd be tempted to stat it up as a NND attack as that stuff is supposed to be able to cut through (almost) anything. The defense could be a force field of some kind.

Sure.  Armor is Obviously protective, and a helmet which provides protection to the head Obviously provides such protection.  It does not Obviously provide mind reading abilities.  Similarly, if that Sword provided protection, as well as being a weapon, it would need some means to Obviously provide such protection in order to be an Obvious focus of such protection.

This.
 
I don't like the idea that the helm looks magical even if it isn't doing anything. But, if Allen is actually using the power, it ought to glow (or something) making it, um, obvious, that he's doing something and it's happening through the helm. But, there's no "energy beam" (or some such) that goes from the helm to Bob so the power effect is still invisible per a Mental Power. Obvious focus with invisible power effect.
 
On the other hand, I guess a case could be made that part of the limitation of being an Obvious focus is that it makes the power(s) that require it also obvious (even if they normally wouldn't be). But, that seems too limiting to me, especially if there are a lot of powers that use the focus.
 
If I were GM, I would use the former and not the latter. YMMV of course.
 
Lee

In the case of the scenario described above, one of two things should happen:
 
EITHER, 1) the Limitation on the Helm should be Inobvious, not Obvious, Focus,
OR, 2) Dave is NOT aware Allen is attacking Bob, but IS in fact aware that the Helm is doing SOMETHING strange.
 
 
You are correct that the Obvious Focus Limitation does not grant other characters extraordinary senses. Then again, it doesn't need to.
 
 
First point: Inobvious Powers generated by Obvious Foci remain inobvious - TRUE
Second point: A character cannot determine that a power they cannot see was generated by a Focus - FALSE.
 
 
You probably can't find that statement, I won't deny it. But you CAN find a statement that an Obvious Focus is obvious.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
I doubt you'll find a palindromedary in any of the Hero books, but you'll find them in my taglines.

Well, one idea as to why they would be used on a starship could be that the power plant, maneuver drive and/or FTL drive causes some kind of damping field that prevents energy weapons from functioning.
 
You might can handwave that to include gunpowder weapons by positing something akin to the realm of Amber in the Chronicles of Amber books where gunpowder didn't work in Amber. Maybe the exotic field generated by the power plant/drives has a similar effect. You could even use that as a plot hook so the characters can try to discover something similar to what (a rouge, IIRC) Corwin found in the Amber books that works like gunpowder even in those fields.
 
Lee

Precisely my point. The drive fields alter things such that energy weapons, gunpowder weapons, or any other weapons you might like as a GM won't function aboard a ship. Thus, the need for swords and other such things shipboard.
 
Another idea would be to posit the idea of it's the artificial gravity field generators that cause the issue. In either case, there's an added complication when the fields get shut off (i.e. damage, someone hits "the big red switch", etc.). Suddenly, those weapons now work, but in an environment where their recoil (for the gunpowder weapons at least) makes the situation more interesting.
 
Lee 

Precisely my point. The drive fields alter things such that energy weapons, gunpowder weapons, or any other weapons you might like as a GM won't function aboard a ship. Thus, the need for swords and other such things shipboard.
 
Another idea would be to posit the idea of it's the artificial gravity field generators that cause the issue. In either case, there's an added complication when the fields get shut off (i.e. damage, someone hits "the big red switch", etc.). Suddenly, those weapons now work, but in an environment where their recoil (for the gunpowder weapons at least) makes the situation more interesting.
 
Lee 

The are available in the downloads section of the site. Go to where the templates are and the oldest download should be the one you're looking for. It has the title "HERO Designer Built-In Templates" by Simon.
 
Lee

Ultraviolet, I believe got 10%.  I enjoyed the film.  Good popcorn flick.   

In my more optimistic moments, I like to consider whether the recent resurgence in bigotry, misogyny, tribalism in Western society isn't really the death throes of an old order that recognizes its time is done but just refuses to accept it.

The danger is that poor writers think "strong woman" means "dude with hooters" rather than writing parts that are female.  We're not interchangable, each of us have our strengths and weaknesses.

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.”
---Earl Warren, jurist (1891-1974)

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.”
---Earl Warren, jurist (1891-1974)

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.”
---Earl Warren, jurist (1891-1974)

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.”
---Earl Warren, jurist (1891-1974)

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.”
---Earl Warren, jurist (1891-1974)

If you guys really wanted your own Trump that bad, we could have sent you ours.  Honest.

Like most of philosophical leanings the more pure they get the more dangerous they get.
 
You can't boil down the complexities of existence and the human mind to a couple of bullet points.  Merciless competition is just as problematic as a world where the social safety net is so good you don't have to compete at all.
 
I had friends in high school who had this as their career plan:  Get pregnant and pretend I don't know who the father is.
I've known people who spent their entire working age years on welfare and their kids grew up and got on welfare.  The reasoning was simply that they couldn't make that much money with a job.  So why bother?
 
Granted I lived in an area with very good social benefits at the time so they were correct to some degree.  There was no entry level job that would pay even close to what they made not working at all.

007 could in theory be anyone; but a female "James Bond" just won't fly. That name immediately conjures widespread popular associations with who and what James  Bond is, going back generations: cool, deadly, sexy, and uber-masculine. Casting too far against those qualities would be almost as suicidal as casting a man as Wonder Woman.
 
But recasting another actor as James Bond, with an updated continuity but still being essentially the same character, has a long and very successful track record. It's no harder for the public to accept than a new Batman, or Spider-Man.

"How the shark got on a motorcycle, nobody knows"

I may have found a tiny typo. On the third page, under the Brace maneuver, the Effects column says:
 
-2 OCV vc R Mod.
 
Should that be:
 
-2 OCV vs R Mod.
 
?
 
Lee