KarinsDad

Re: What is the best way to build this?

Re: What is the best way to build this? The rules are the rules, and often the rules are crystal clear. Adding a limitation to a multipower reserve that does not limit every power in the multipower is not allowed. The -1/4 can be missile deflected limitation is not allowed since most of the RKAs in the multipower can already be missile deflected. And if you added the 15 points to the multipower, that's not how it should be written up. The 15 points are not added to the multipower reserve cost (as per the doubling rules). People will have a hard time understanding what you are doing if you do not explicitly spell it out. For example, I still have no idea why you purchased the 11 Real Point / 15 Active Point Gun Fully Invisible 0 End in your build. It does not make sense. What 15 Active Point base power was that affecting? The Doubling cost (which is not affected by advantages or limitations)??? I suspect you were trying to make the "6 distinct weapons" from the 5-point doubling rule into a single weapon (5 of them invisible or non-existent from a SFX POV), but without a base power to attach advantages to, that's not the way to do it. You'll notice that Hugh also thought you were using an MPA. That is because the power you built cannot be used with Rapid Fire for different attack powers. That's the rules. That's the rules conundrum that people have been wrestling with since this thread started, but you just drop it on the floor with this build. Rapid Fire is for single attack power with multiple attack rolls, MPA is for multiple attack powers with one attack roll. There are no rules for multiple attack powers with multiple rolls (unless one does both MPA and Rapid Fire, and that still has the limitations mentioned earlier) and hence, you cannot just add such a house rule and expect it to be legal for the OP's GM. Your earlier build of having a single attack power with multiple advantages, each usable under certain conditions, can be used with Rapid Fire because it is a single attack power. This build is not. The doubling rule makes it 6 distinct multipowers with 6 distinct set of attack powers within the multipowers. Your build here is no different than having multiple multipowers with an attack power in each. Different attack powers not allowed with Rapid Fire. Different attack powers only allowed with MPA. Sorry. That’s the rules. Go ask Steve. My confidence is based on playing this system on and off for over 25 years since 1E came out. I noticed that you disagreed with me on the "how to" thread on an illegal rules question (Accurate One Hex), then went and asked Steve, and he agreed with me, not you. That should illustrate to you my level of rules confidence. I might not be a 5Er expert, but I know enough about the game system to understand how the rules interact.

Re: What is the best way to build this? Ok, I understand your build now. Still some issues with it: 1) The -1/4 for all powers can be missile deflected should be a -0 limitation. Most of the powers in this build can already be missile deflected. This -1/4 limitation can be placed on the Explosion slot, but not on the normal ones or on the entire multipower. Of course, -1/4 Beam can be placed on some of the slots as well. 2) You did not pay the 15 points for the doubling effect. Those points are not increased or decreased with advantages or limitations. Just 15 points. 3) Extra limbs do not automatically give additional attacks per phase. The GM would have to allow this (which I suspect many GMs would). 4) The Invisibility should have been only on the Extra limbs (i.e. 5 Active Points +1 Fully Invisible = 10 Active Points). Extra Limbs already costs 0 END. Since there is no Str add to the bullet damage, there is no reason to make the Extra Limbs Reduced End. 5) 37 Active points result in 4 point Ultras before limitations (rounds closest, does not truncate, 5Er page 7). It matters little how many limitations you put on these multipower slots. They are all going to be 2 point Ultras (any total limitations in the range of -3/4 to -2 1/2 result in 2 point Ultras for this). So, the cost of this should be more in the ballpark of: 16 Multipower (37 Active Points, -1 OAF, -1/4 real weapon) U2 slot 1 U2 slot 2 U2 slot 3 U2 slot 4 U2 slot 5 U2 slot 6 U2 slot 7 U2 slot 8 15 Doubling Rule, 3 times (no advantages, no limitations) 4 Extra Limbs (5 Active, +1 Fully Invisible, -1 OAF, -1/2 Linked) 4 Skill Levels (9 Active, -1 OAF, -1/2 Linked) For 55 real points. Now for the interesting part. This build can ONLY fire multiple different bullet attacks with the Multipower Attack (hence, the reason Hugh thought like he did). Any Rapid Fire doing this results in a SINGLE attack power being used. So, the user could fire off 3 AP shots with Rapid Shot, but he cannot also fire off some Explosions with that. This build could fire 3 AP and 3 Explosion by firing off 1 AP and 1 Explosion via Multipower Attack Rapid Shot, followed by a second AP and Explosion via Multipower Attack Rapid Shot, etc. But, the only way to get different types of attacks with your build here is to use Multipower Attack. Rapid Fire does not allow multiple attacks from DIFFERENT powers and each power in the multipower slots are different powers. That is the original problem that the builds in this thread are trying to avoid. Rapid Fire can only be done on a single attack power, not multiple ones. Your build here does nothing to avoid that rule. There is no difference between the build you just made and someone who created six actual guns with the 5 point doubling rule and actually had 6 hands to fire them. Such a PC would have the same problem. Each gun could fire the type of bullet from its multipower selected slot with a MPA shot. But if Rapid Fire is used, it has to be used with the same attack power.

Re: What is the best way to build this? And what rule in the book (page number please) does this correspond to?

Re: What is the best way to build this? You seem to have good ideas, but they do not match the rules. For example in this build: 1) One cannot have different attack powers in framework slots fire off in the same phase. 2) One is already limited to changing clips to a Half Phase Action, you are adding in the ability to change the clip AND change the order of the bullets in a clip, still within a single half phase action (if I am reading your build correctly). If you are saying that it takes two half phase actions with Fast Draw, one for changing clips and one for changing the order of the bullets in a clip, then that is different. 3) Extra limbs does nothing for the problem (TMK, if so, please explain). 4) Your framework here would only allow one type of power in a single phase, not 8, even if you had the multipower points to allow multiple powers at once (i.e. if you did not violate point #1 here). 5) What does the Fully Invisible do? What power is it making invisible? The only legal ways suggested so far in this thread for this to work is: 1) Buy a single attack power with a lot of advantages where each advantage either works or do not works based on the limitations placed on each advantage (which you suggested earlier) OR: 2) Buy multiple attack powers where each one triggers off of the previous one and the first one triggers off of the user (i.e. he pulls the trigger). The first solution has the problem of being a very high active cost for that single power. Every additional bullet type increases the active cost. The second solution has the problem of being a very high active cost for all of the powers combined (i.e. the base power is purchased over and over again), along with each power can only be used once per phase (i.e. multiple APs cannot be done in a phase) unless the auto-reset is purchased for the trigger, in which case Rapid Shot can be used to fire the pre-defined sequence multiple times. But, whatever sequence was set up for the triggers does not change (the sequence could be changed the next phase). It also has the problem that the user has no control over the triggers, hence, if he sets up 4 triggers and the first bullet knocks the opponent unconscious, the other 3 shots will continue to hit him (and there might be limitations in the rules that the triggers have to affect the same target or area, but I did not look that up). Both of these solutions are standalone (i.e. cannot benefit from frameworks), hence, they are costly. But, rules legal solutions using frameworks just do not work at all (unless you can come up with a way to do so which so far, you haven't), so I'm not quite sure why you keep trying to push such solutions as viable.

Re: What is the best way to build this? As you built it, it was two triggers per phase reset. But, Trigger can be set multiple times does not change the zero phase reset rule. Once you fire a trigger off, it stays off until you reset it. Since you were using zero phase resets, that meant that you could only fire off a max of 4 shots per phase because once the first one fires off, you could not do any more zero phase actions to reset it. The +1/2 "trigger resets automatically after it activates" advantage could help if you combined the attacks with Rapid Fire, but then you would be getting REAL pricey. Without this advantage, no you cannot fire more than a max of 4 shots per phase because there is no way to reset the trigger "mid-attack" otherwise.

Re: What is the best way to build this? Go back and reread that entire post. Steve suggested nothing of the sort. Rapid Fire does not have a single attack roll like he inadvertently assumed in his message there. Hence, it is not a viable solution. Steve did, however, explicitly state that such an attack sequence would require a single attack roll (which Rapid Fire does not). Just because Steve made an error there does not mean that one can then use that error to support an illegal rules position. The rules are still the rules and it's obvious from the Rapid Fire rules that Steve made a mistake there (Rapid Fire has multiple attack rolls, not just one).

Re: What is the best way to build this? Hardly. Rapid Fire is a single full phase action, not multiple attack actions. One is not doing an attack action with Rapid Shot. The fact that Rapid Shot allows multiple attacks (note: multiple attacks, not multiple attack actions) during it changes nothing about the fact that zero phase actions cannot be done after attack actions or full phase actions. Changing two rules in order to accomplish the goal does not appear to be a "small point".

Re: WWYCS: "Why Shouldn't I Kill Him?" RIP "Societal rules and laws were created to gain cooperation between people and prevent anarchy. Unfortunately, that does not make them necessarily more correct or even more useful than individual judgment. If there were no superheroes and only supervillains and so the law were changed so that all officers of the peace could use lethal force based on their own judgment and even on the mere suspicion of a felony, then that too would be the law. Laws are flexible and based on societal need at the moment, hence, there is no absolute truth in them. What is a crime in one jurisdiction is not in another. That is the weakness of the legal system and the reason vigilantes exist: to fill the void and self correct the system. So, can I help?"

Re: What is the best way to build this? I think that this gives you four shots max until you reset each one with a half phase. You should put on them the +1/4 reset is a zero phase action advantage. You also need one of the related set of triggers to be that you "pull the trigger". That should not be the only trigger though, since otherwise all of the bullets fire simultaneously. The other possible triggers should be based on the previous bullet firing. One downside of this solution is that they all fire off every time you set them and they all fire off in the same order (each being a trigger off the previous one). Course, this is somewhat a minor issue since you reset them at the beginning of a phase (if you put on the extra +1/4), but if you set up 3 of the 4 triggers on a phase and fire the first one, you fire the other 2 as well (which could kill an opponent if you did not realize that he did not have resistant defenses). Once set up, the triggers force them to fire. Another downside is that you cannot fire off two AP bullets followed by a single Silver bullet. Each power is used once per phase max (because the trigger for it is not reset until the next phase). So, this would work. But, I really think Hyper-man's idea is best, the limitations just need to be worded properly.

Re: What is the best way to build this? Except that this solution does not work according to the rules. Variable advantages can only be changed once per phase (unless the GM waives this rule). Also, changing a variable advantage is a zero phase action. Zero phase actions cannot be done after any attack action. Whatever advantage is on an attack power when the first attack goes off is the advantage that is used on the attack power when the last attack in the phase goes off. The entire point of Hyper-man's build was that it was a single attack power where all of the advantages are used every single time, but they just do not necessarily all work every single time (due to limitations). The power does not change between attacks, just different advantages are in effect during each attack. That's the only way I see to get this to work. But, with a lot of advantages on the power, it does up the cost a lot.

Re: What is the best way to build this? So, how exactly does your method work? Can he use AP and Silver at the same time? I didn't see in your method a way to prevent that. Can he fire 3 APs per clip, two, or just one? One, two or three Silver? Without you being explicit, it's hard to actually know what you are proposing.

Re: What is the best way to build this? Linked can be put on raw Advantages. The idea is to put in something that forces it to be: 3 normal, 2 silver, and 1 AP in every single clip. Something that forces one advantage or the other to be working or not working as desired and as the power is used each time, but to still have it be a single attack power with every advantage intact every time. As written, it is "choose an advantage" which makes each attack use different powers and is not really RAW legal. Nothing in your build actually specifies that all advantages are always being used, but not all of the advantages actually work with the power every time (the implication is there, but it is not spelled out). The power has to be AP and Silver every single time it is fired, but sometimes the AP part of it does not work and sometimes, the Silver part of it does not work. But, they always are part of the advantages of the power. Like I said, you are close. But, you are not yet there. Linked can be used to close that gap. Maybe Linked is not needed, but as written, the use of the power as a single power is not crystal clear.

Re: What is the best way to build this? You are almost there, but it doesn't quite meet the criteria. He cannot fire the normal bullets and the armor piercing ones and the silver ones in an order as desired. And why exactly do these extra slots use Endurance? They should be made 0 End. Also, the AP and Silver bullets should be linked advantages to slot #1. If you do that, you could have the Linked advantages work or not work as desired (i.e. limited off each other, one cannot be done while the other is done) and they can all be linked as the same power. Make both the Silver and the AP each a legal fraction of the 8 charges per clip (i.e. 1/3rd of 8 does not work real well). For example, 1/4 AP and 1/4 Silver. He could then fire off 4 standard, 2 silver, and 2 AP in any order he wants in a phase. However, he would have to keep track of how many of each from each clip he fired. To get a third AP bullet, he would have to "change clips". Once you have this working as a single attack power (i.e. the linked raw advantages are part of that single power), then you meet his criteria.

Re: What is the best way to build this? You might not find what you are looking for as far as RAW is concerned. The only reasonable way to do this (as far as suggestions go so far) is to use Multipower Attacks. That is not multiple attack rolls. Nor will it necessarily be 60 Active points or less. But, you cannot get blood from a stone. If the rules do not allow for what you want to do under the restrictions that you have laid out, then they do not allow it. You are treading into meta-rules here and those are pretty well defined in the system. Effectively what you want to do add a new rule to achieve a new metagame concept (i.e. changing the type of an attack mid-maneuver). Now, there is a way you can quasi-do it. You can Multipower attack 3 attacks and combine it with Rapid Shot: Rapid Shot group one, attack roll #1: RKA 2d6-1, normal RKA 2d6-1, silver RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing (since all three are simultaneous, the order does not matter) followed by: Rapid Shot group two, attack roll #2: RKA 2d6-1, normal RKA 2d6-1, silver RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing followed by: Rapid Shot group three, attack roll #3: RKA 2d6-1, normal RKA 2d6-1, silver RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing But, you could not replace one of these with: RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing RKA 2d6, Armor Piercing RKA 2d6-1, silver And, either all 3 in a group hit, or they all miss. Similar to what you want to do, but not exact. And, this type of solution will probably cost more than 60 Active points.

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

Re: Rolling Over versus Under I'll try once more (although I think thou dost protest too much considering the number of posts you've made on this forum). You already stated that what you do in your game is: My system: YOU: 11+OCV. ME: Compare result to DCV of target + 3d6. Example: OCV 10, DCV 8, Roll 12 Yours: 11+10-12 (9) compare to 8. Mine: 11+10 (21) compare to 8+12 (20). Someone else could use: 11 + OCV - DCV, compare to roll: 11+10-8 (13) compare to 12. In fact, we've used this third system here for years. The OCV - DCV delta is added to 11 to figure out what roll is needed. I've never had players tell me what DCV they hit (like you do). They tell me their OCV and roll the dice instead. When the NPCs attack the PCs, I roll the dice and the player tells me their PCs DCV. All of these systems work identically with respect to the math. Another person could use: 11 - DCV compare to Roll - OCV. Course, that would be harder to use. Another person could use: 11 compare to Roll + DCV - OCV. Even harder.

Re: What is the best way to build this? Maneuvers, of course, can allow for multiple attack rolls, but they must each be for the same attack power (or same group of attack powers).

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

Re: Rolling Over versus Under The GM knows the opponents DCV. Who said the player has to figure it out? If one calculates 11 + OCV - 3D6, yes a player can tell the GM: "I hit a DCV of 8." It matters not too much if the GM then tells them the opponent's DCV or not. He at least tells the player if his PC hits or not. After a few attacks, the player will start to get an idea of what the opponent's DCV is sooner or later anyway. So yes, if the GM requires that each player tell him what DCV the player hits each time, the player would have to subtract in order to figure that out. In our games, we don't bother with keeping DCVs hidden since it doesn't really matter much in the long run anyway. The player with the method above can say: My OCV is 19, I rolled a 9. The GM can add 9 to the DCV to figure out if it is greater than 19 and a miss. GMs in most games I have played also tend to watch over what is rolled and what is the expected outcome anyway. The advantage of this is that the GM might notice a mistake that the player might not (GMs tend to be rules savvy, some players are, some players are not). I guess it depends on the GM. Some GMs might want to merely know DCV and want the player to figure out what DCV he hits for the GM.

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

Re: What is the best way to build this? Except that activating an attack power is the end of your phase (after determining if you hit and any damage, page 370). You cannot activate more than a single attack power in a phase, nor can you use more than a single attack power in a Blazing Away or Rapid Fire maneuver. Not trying to give you a hard time here, I just know of no way within the rules to accomplish what you want to do.

Re: Rolling Over versus Under I just thought of a faster way to handle this using the current rules. Add 11 to OCV on characters sheets. Instead of an OCV of 8, a character has an OCV of 19. Add 3D6 attack roll to the DCV of the defender. If 3D6 + DCV > modified OCV, then it misses. If 3D6 + DCV <= modified OCV, than it hits. For example, OCV 8, DCV 10. OCV is written as 19. Roll 3D6 and add DCV of 10. If you roll a 9-, that is <= to 19 and hits. If you roll a 10+, that is > 19 and misses. This has the advantage of using one addition, one comparison, and both OCV and DCV are modified as normal. It does the exact same thing as Rolling Over, but it adds the DCV to the dice roll, not the OCV. Fast and easy.

Re: Endurance Reserves This is not identical to Persistent. Persistent is 0 End and hence continues forever. Drawing END from a reserve would typically drain the reserve to zero (eventually) unless the recovery rate is greater than or equal to the useage rate. And, this only applies to constant powers. An instant power would obviously not draw END from a reserve while unconscious. The PC pays for the End Reserve, so he gains the advantages of it. This just happens to be one of the advantages. However, it can also be a disadvantage as well if the End Reserve drains real low. Think of it like turning on a flashlight. Just because a PC is unconsious does not mean that the flashlight turns off as well.

Re: Bringing accuracy into the equation How about a simpler system? CV + Dice of Damage = 20 (for example). So, a brick with 60 Str could have a max CV of 8. The martial artist with a 12 CV could do 8D6 max. Add 1D6 per number the roll is made by. Subtract 1D6 per number the roll is missed by. So, the martial artist rolls 11. He hits by 4. He does 8D6+4D6 = 12D6. The brick rolls an 11. He misses by 4. He does 12D6-4D6 = 8D6 damage. The brick does a glancing blow with an 11. The martial artist does a solid shot with an 11. No charts needed. Considerably simpler than the system you proposed. And, the martial artist can get away with lighter defenses.