akrippler

Re: attacking individuals. Under "attacking individuals" the rules note that the ban on attacking individuals is for ease of play.
 
Most actions for prominent individuals are not attack options, but leadership. inspiration and intimidation. However, the rules note that if a prominent individual chooses to attack a unit, it is treated as a unit of one person (ie, the unit it is attacking can attack it back).

Determinging damage from individual attacks - yes, the rules note that under most circumstances the Unit Modifer should not be less that 0, in order that a smaller unit may damage a larger one. However, it goes on to note that the GM may allow Unit Modifiers of less than 0 in order to keep smaller units from having too great an impact. In the case of an individual, no matter how prominent, attacking a large unit, that would seem appropriate.

AOEs are mentioned in Megascale and Battle Scale in the Magic in Mass Combat section. It suggests the way to build a spell to affect an entire unit is to use Megascale.

No mass combat system I'm aware of segues nicely between personal scale and unit scale. There's always some clunkiness and edge cases.

Hero System mass combat offers several options - treating prominent individuals as one-person units, using noteworthy events for individuals, and having personal scale combat in a mass combat environment. None of these is without issues - but those issues are much easier to resolve if one remembers that the player characters are the protagonists: it's their story that matters.

everything lars does seems possible with enough points dropped (ie enough trainning) so it seems modeled pretty well to me

bows are pretty powerful, we just started a low power fantasy game at 75 points each, the archer is capable of a higher ka than anyone else, and can do it from a good amount of range before suffering penalties. even with the built in taxes (ocv to stop him from hitting allies in melee, psls against range, etc...)  everything is pretty cheap when it comes down to actually putting out damage. 

well this thread took a turn. if anyone is still interested: we've decided to just roll with combat luck stacking on armor for now. agreed as a group to re-evaluate if anyone thinks it has become a problem... tankiest character in the group is 9rpd/12pd with armor. it seems a little high, but were playing a more role-play heavy game, and hes still in danger of getting knocked unconscious.  which to a degree makes sense to me..
 
if you gave me a normal person, even with a little above average strength, a long sword and told me to damage a competent maneuverable person in llamelar armor (he is suffering no encumbrance with his current str/weight) i dont think i could realistically do any body to him.  now a person with training (modeled by str only with sword) that is capable of upping the damage to 2 and a half d6, is fully capable of knowing the right spots to hit to actually hurt the armored person.
 
as for the philosophical combat luck debate: Ive always seen it as a "grazed you" option.  Arrow bounces off the armor, of if unarmored, scrapes the bone etc....  Sometimes we have fun with it and rename the power "Just a scratch!" or "Rolling with the punch."  DND has similar mechanics in that if the monster rolls a 17 against the 18 AC fighter its more fun to say "His jaw snaps shut on your forearm but is unable to pierce the armor" rather than a simple "he missed" 

i mean we could theoretically argue that hit points from DND and stun/body in hero are really just plot armor points, once you reach 0 you've expended your allotment of bullshit before the inevitable happens.  

ive used the crap out of your website for a long time now. thanks for responding

ive used the crap out of your website for a long time now. thanks for responding

In 5e, I used limits on the # of levels characters could take for both Combat Luck and Deadly Blow.
 
I also formally defined how defenses stack.

I think a good argument can be made for combat luck only really working if you are agile, so that if you're wearing bulky armor it negates at least part or all of the bonuses from the talent.

In addition to this, no matter the genre armor is not always accepted.  Most social functions will require everyone to come in conventional (nonarmored) clothing.  Also unless the armor is extremely light it will extremely restrict their ability to rest, this includes modern armors.  While RAW may allow def to combine, in reality the def will not combine in the same manner.  You might want to house rule a more realistic (and complex) system where greater def yields less effect.  Eventually the effective def will equal zero but still add mass, making it more difficult for the char to move (if not impossible).  

In Hero's Valdorian Age setting, Combat Luck only costs 5 points per level, but it doesn't work if you wear heavy armor (over 15kg worth). It was a -1/2 Limitation calculated into the cost of the other Advantages and Limitations already built into Combat Luck.
 
Instead of going by weight, I suppose you could also just set your limit at 3 or maybe 4 points of Armor before Combat Luck stops working.
 
You could also require this Limitation on buying points of DCV past a certain level, like 5 or 6 DCV, so heavy-armored characters can't get as high of a DCV as lighter-armored types.

I've used a in-house armor stacking rule based on the Armor Chart being double weight per 2 rPD/rED.
 
If your existing armor is equal to or more than 1/2 of the existing armor rating then you get +1 rPD/rED.
 
EX:  Character has Combat Luck and wants to wear Heavy Leather Armor (3 rPD/rED, 7 kg).  Since the Heavy Leather Armor (3 rPD) is more than 1/2 of the rPD of Combat Luck the character gets to add 1 rPD/rED and gets a total of 4 rPD/rED.
 
We find this keeps armor stacking from getting out of control while not allowing silly stacking like 5 t-shirts plus Combat Luck = ultra-light plate armor.

In my games (modern action adventure) all PCs have Combat Luck (can only buy 1 level) because it is just important for survivability. What we've found is that it does stack with armor, making armor hits by guns much less likely to do damage, but armor is also more limited in coverage (usually) in the game. Instead of changing cost and effect, I've just told players to buy their PD and ED 3 points lower than they would have, because what we've really noticed is that an 8PD guy, now effectively 11 PD prior to Armor... that 3 difference in amount of stun taken really ads up. So, instead that 8PD guy has a 5PD, 8 with combat luck, and we're all good.

For my games, the PCs need the extra resistant defenses, not to get easily scragged by autofire high velocity weapons and frag grenades, etc.

Combat Luck: 3PD, 3ED
Active cost 6
cannot wearing armor -1\2
real cost 4

In my low magic session. Combat luck work only without armor. 

I am coming to the same conclusion.  I'll need to just skimp on robot features to make it work.  

Same thing, only the max END remains unchanged.
 
Absorb / Aid to STUN would be the same; I don't think you can "take STUN damage" from the extra points fading.  Could be wrong, there.

Your END reserve is still at 0, and the max END of the reserve drops by 5 points as normal. 
 
It can't go negative.
 
Absorb to END, by default, increases both the maximum END of the reserve, as well as the current.  (Unless it has "only restores to starting values" adder.)