PhilFleischmann

Have you considered requiring that all of these Multiforms must take an Endurance Reserve without a REC.  Once the reserve is depleted, they revert.
 
You may have to do some handwaving but it may work like you want it to.

I am beginning to wonder if people believe that the Images power is simply negating modifiers.  If I am wrong, please ignore.
 
My understanding is that the Images are not an image of a light source but of the object illuminated.  So, if you shine a "light" with images +4 on a person in a darkened warehouse, the normal -4 penalty is still there, but you get a +4 bonus to the image of a person in a warehouse.  The Create Light limitation is in effect saying you can't change the image to make it look like a unicorn, only just to light up the object.  It does not indicate there is a hard edge to the light radius unless you want the light to have a hard edge.  If you want it to have a bright spot in the center and gradually fade out in illumination, then the image in the area of effect will do that. Ex: a Images Create Light Only 4m radius can have a +4 PER in the 1m center and fade out such that at 4m from the center its only +1 to see the image of a lighted object.
 

Immediately, I'd suggest a sense, any sense, that doesn't rely on light visible to the naked (normal) human eye.  Attach it to your sight group.
 
Baring that, go with a Steve Long-inspired model:  Images: only to see what's in front of me.
 
Less immediate:
 
One of the goals of this entire exercise, as I understand it, is to figure out how to do the very thing you're asking about.

I'm just going to leave this as a standing challenge to everyone's illumination models: 
How do you build the ability to see in darkness?  Can your system model that too? 
Not dim light, darkness.  As in "Gads, even my hyper-eyes are useless in this subterranean gloom!" "Haha, puny surface people's puny surface eyes are useless, unlike the superior eyes of the Cavelords of Chthonia!"

Given this is what we have from the limited current rules, I think that makes the best starting point.  I don't see how we get darker than the description given for "a dark night" and still have any light to make sight useful.  As well, any further penalty makes Darkvision more expensive, which just starts "point inflation".  "A complete absence of light" is as dark as it can reasonably get.
 
 
This is my basis for the determination - 6e refers to Darkvision being constructed as "+4 PSLs to counter darkness penalties".  If it could be dark enough to impose -5, that construction fails.
 
 
This bonus is very easy to achieve - a SuperScientist will often have a 15- PER roll from INT alone.  Such a character can effectively navigate in anything less than total darkness just as effectively as we navigate in ordinary light.  Of course, that -4 penalty remains meaningful if there is some other penalty to overcome, and that character's visual acuity is still reduced - it simply started out far better.
 
 
Again taking my cues from what we find in the rules, there are no bonuses for  better lighting, so the base must be as good as it can get.
 
 
That would be the default, and another reason for using CE - that power does not simulate a Dispel or Suppress.  Darkness typically affects the entire Sight Group, and is by definition impenetrable.  It also makes 20 points of Darkness (5 for Sight Group + 15 for extending the radius 3 meters to 4 meters) better than 4 meters of CE "complete darkness".
 
 
"Twice as dark" seems inconsistent with your premise that "dark is the default".
 
If we start from -5 is a complete absence of light (i.e. it is no longer a penalty - normal sight has nothing to see), then:
 
-4 is "black as a dark night"
 
-3 is probably "a moonless night"
 
-2 is "night in the city
 
and -1 is "dimly lit/twilight".
 
 
Perhaps the better phrasing would have been "dark is not the in-game default - the in-game default is ordinary lighting such that there are no penalties to sight rolls".

6e V2 provides us with a sight PER roll modifier for "Extremely high contrast (e.g., a lighted object in darkness) of +5; Night -2; Dark Night -4 (p 142 elaborates "such as might occur on a moonless night way out in the country, far from any of the lights of civilization"). It also indicates we can spend a full phase at half DCV to get +2, so those night modifiers seem pretty charitable.  At least size modifiers are noted as generally applying only to things that are far away, or that someone is trying to conceal.
 
From v1, we know that Darkvision is modeled on +4 Sight PER Rolls, only to eliminate penalties for darkness.
 
With that in mind, I am starting from the presumption that anything below -4 from Darkness is "absolute lack of light".  That alone does not fill me with confidence, but the fact that my pricing aligns with the pricing of Darkness makes me happier.
 
What we don't have is any mechanic for lighting a dark (or semi-dark) area.  To me, the Light we produce cannot do more than cancel penalties for Darkness, but I am starting from "enough to wipe them out".  It's easy to build "dim light" that reduces the penalty by only 2 points, if desired.
 
 
This is more a challenge of duplicating characters with a long publishing history and many examples of doing many different things.  At some point, a Multipower is more expensive than a Cosmic VPP.  That is the point at which I would transition to a VPP, even if one with only pre-defined slots and or limited SFX (which further reduces the cost of the VPP).  With 6e decoupling max AP from pool size, this becomes more viable for, say, the Archers with an arrow for every occasion.  The problem with VPP is that it opens up a world of possibilities, but that is the same world many other games open by allowing "but logically, my power/spell/whatever should be able to do X".  That is really a VPP with a limited SFX.
 
 
Once we cap the penalty at -4 and accept that anything " more dark" lacks any light and requires enhanced senses, that issue is markedly reduced.  And as someone in the "math should be equal" camp, if I'm sold, many others probably can be as well.
 
Dark is not the default condition.  We assume as a base that you get normal PER rolls, so that assumes you are in the light.  You want to make it dark, you buy an ability to do so.  To say "dark is the default" because it is an absence of light implies that absolute zero in a vacuum is also the default.
 
 
 

I agree with what you say, and what you seem to be implying.  I would like to point out, if I may, that your example is falling, which is a function of gravity.  As falling is well-defined in the rules, we can assume that gravity works "thusly" (which is to say, according to the falling rules) in every game.  The "default" such as it is.
 
There is no such thing for natural light or darkness (as before, "of which I am aware."  I am receptive to correction here, as I would be interested in seeing what official rules 1) I have missed 2) have to say about it.).  As there is no detailed ruleset or explanation of how one works or is affected by the other, it's not unreasonable to assume that it falls to the GM to make the determination.  As I understand it, this entire thread is devoted to creating precisely such a system, presumably because the official rules completely lack one.
 
Much in the way that HERO leaves designing the actual game to the GM, it seems to leave this to the GM as well.  As I've stated before, I have no major issue with this, because-- while i like tinkering with models and systems as much as anyone else, I don't find modeling this particular thing to be strictly necessary.  Still, it's interesting.  
 
 
 
 
VPP.
 
Done.
 
And while I don't generally buy NPC books, so I can't tell you how often that's been done officially, I can tell you it turns up a _lot_ on character sheets posted all over the net and even offered on these boards.  Check out some of the "how do I build X character" or "here are some comic book characters done on X points" threads.  Buy a couple of their defining or more iconic traits, then drop on a VPP.
 
(Seriously: I'm trying really hard to not let my personal dislike of VPP cloud this.  Yes; I understand the utility.  I dislike the utility.  This thread is not about that, so I'm trying to be objective here).
 
If we need to break it down a bit, we can do a skill pool ("know stuff")  a characteristic pool and / or a power pool ("do stuff.")
 
 
[on a personal note, this echoes my complaint from years ago about the dogged pursuit of mathematically perfect balance resulting in a rather boring game where you spend points on one of two characteristics:  "Affect universe" and "resist universe."    )
 
 
 
 
Ditto.
 
 
Completely with you.  
 
I would to point out something that I believe is going to be the big stumbling block, particularly in the "math must be equal" camps:
 
The math isn't going to be equal.  This is because "dark" is a default condition.  If there is no light applied, there will be dark.  Dark cannot be applied.  Dark can only be "increased" by reducing the application of light.    While my example of a -2000 penalty to sight PER was hyperbolic, the fact remains that _any_ light-- any light at all-- will remove all of those penalties within the affected area.  All of them.
 
And as I type this, it occurs to me that we may be looking at this completely wrong simply by assuming that this is a light v dark situation.  Likely this assumption is from decades of affect versus defense that is the core of the game.
 
If dark is the default condition, then we are dealing with light, period.  Only light.   PER modifiers-- both positive and negative-- are functions of light.    So we need to decide how to model "reducing light" and "increasing light" and just what effects those have.  Zero light is "no sight PER roll is possible."   
 
That brings us to the 3 problem.  How is the 3 problem overcome without handwaving?  How do we go from "but if I roll a 3..." to "you have acquired a temporary physical limitation?"  The 3problem prevents absolutes, and total absence of light is an absolute.  
 
The other problem is going beyond the "just right" amount of light.  If we model light as being able to "add to your sight PER potential" or "remove negative penalties," then it follows that there is a scale from "none" to "microchip assembly plant."  it follows that continuing to add light should continue to increase the sight PER ability.  Problematically, this is not accurate (again: if we are modeling "real world" conditions).  Adding light _also_ makes seeing more difficult.  As light levels rise above "ideal," colors wash; glare increases, and eventually we get to a point that we can't even bear to look at it.  Moving further up the scale, we can't bear to look out into it.  In game terms, at some point it becomes an ongoing Flash attack, and can still increase beyond that!  It can become a transformation attack, causing permanent blindness.  Forgive this morbidity (it's not meant to be in bad taste), but the shadows on the wall in Japan suggest that it can be increased to a truly staggering killing attack.
 
Now this is not to say that "light cannot be modeled better than it is."  It is saying that modeling "real world" light is going to be really, really ugly, especially if we are going to stick to some kind of concept that there is mathematical consistency in this (how many PSLs equals Killing Attack, for example).
 
 
That's a rather long-winded way of offering the suggestion that before we begin to create a model, we should first decide the upper and lower limits of what we are trying to model.  Of greater difficulty, we must _agree_ on these limits: it's so very easy to say "but just a bit more should mean x" or "just a bit less should mean y."  
 
 
 
Accepted.
 
 
 
Sorry.  I am out of time.
 
 
Thanks, Hugh!
 
 
 

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.  I showed - multiple times now - how the same functionality can be had in a rules-legal way for less cost using fixed slots.  And even with non-abusive constructs (not using the "microslots"), how you can achieve very nearly the same flexibility as the variable slots, using fixed slots.  But here's one more way to show how flexible slots aren't as useful as their official price suggests:
 
Take a "standard" Starburst-style MP, with a 12d6 Blast as one of the flexible slots.  How much of that flexibility is ever going to be used?  Will this character ever need to use just s 1d6 Blast?  Will there ever be an occasion where he will want to lower his defensive/movement power(s) by 5 points to make a 1 DC attack?  Will this character ever fire this Blast at less than 6d6?  If not, then he's really only using half the flexibility he paid for.
 
Agreed, but I'm not talking about what should be allowed.  I'm talking about how much something should cost.  And I'm basing that on the HERO principle that its cost should be commensurate with its utility.
 
I assess that 20% is too high based on all the arguments I've presented.  I am not unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% is appropriate - I simply haven't made that full assessment yet.  And all this is based on my many years of experience with the HERO System.  I picked 15% because it seems about right, based on everything I've learned about the system so far.  And it's also simpler to calculate than any other percentage between 10 and 20.  I do not offer it as *the* answer only because I haven't playtested it extensively, and I am willing to hear arguments for other costs.  So far, IMO, 15% seems about right.
 
Well then you're not addressing my question.  I was comparing flexibility to raw power.  If you aren't including flexibility in either of your two constructs, then it's not really relevant to the question.
 
Exactly my point.  The great flexibility of two entirely different attacks only costs 20% of the price of the raw power.  Hence the fundamental principle of "Additional Flexibility costs less than Raw Power".  To look at it the other way, you could turn that 72-point MP into a single power, a 12d6 Blast, for the same 60 points.  Either way, we reduce the cost by 16.7%, but in one case, we're reducing the Raw Power 16.7%, and in the other case, were reducing the flexibility to 0.  A huge reduction in flexibility reduced the cost by the same amount as a fairly small reduction in raw power.
 
None of these things exist in a vacuum.  What's allowed in a campaign is not directly related to what something should cost.  Assuming a campaign maximum of 12d6, you could have a three-fixed-slot MP for 60+6+6+6 = 78 points, or a three-variable-slot MP for 60+12+12+12 = 96 points.  Does this variable-slot MP truly offer an additional 18 points worth of utility?  That's the only question I'm asking.  Campaign limits have nothing to do with it.

I disagree.  The many small slots (hearafter MSS) model clearly demonstrates that there's a pricing issue.  I see three obvious ways to fix it and only one is "Just say NO".  I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of. 
1 - GMs just say NO.  Solves the 'abusive' behavior but doesn't address the pricing issue directly. 
1b - Change the stacking rules to forbid stacking.  Prevents MSS, but at the cost of collateral damage to non-abusive stacking constructs. 
2 - Change the price of slots, assuming that MSS is reasonable (ie, the pricing issue lies with variable slots).  As demonstrated upthread, N-1 10 AP fixed slots and 1 10 AP variable slot will give the full flexibility of a 10N AP variable slot at a 1 point surcharge over the 10N AP fixed slot.  Therefore, make variable slots a 1 point surcharge over fixed slots and permit fixed slots to be used in 10 AP chunks. 
3 - Change the price of slots, assuming that MSS is unreasonable (ie, the pricing issue lies with MSS).  For example, adding a 1 point surcharge to all slots would make any MSS construct significantly more expensive than single fixed slots, and the 10 AP MSS construct would cost as much as single variable slots.
 
This at least is easily solvable by moving to flexible caps.  Specify baseline, and then specify what a step up or down from baseline is.  Then specify a maximum number of steps up/down per characteristic, specify categories and a maximum number of total steps up and down per category, and specify how many total steps up/down in general. 
This sort of capping structure means that Variable Slot Man can have the potential to reach actual-cap in everything and have it be useful, though he's paying a premium for the ability to shift around his strengths and weaknesses. 

BTW, Phil, as this thread has become heated at points, and as I know my own tone often is read as pretty confrontational, I wanted to state that I find this a good discussion of the issue. 
 
Your examples highlight where the RAW may be giving us a poor result.  I think intuitively most of us would not have allowed the "tiny fixed slots" model,  but an objective read of the RAW says the approach is rules-legal.  I'm still waiting for Steve's comments on the rules question board, but that will clarify what he may have wanted to say, not what was published.

So Mother-May-I.  No thanks, I like my rules to be rules. 

What stops him?  Nothing in the rules stops him.  Only the GM can stop him.  Because it's 100% within the rules, it clearly shows that FLEXIBLE SLOTS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE, relative to fixed slots.  That is the only point I'm trying to make here.  It's not about campaign limits, or which powers can be in a framework (Mental Defense is a Special Power, but when you make it Resistant, it's no longer a Special Power?)
 
You know what else is not in the spirit of the rules?  Paying significantly more points than the utility is worth.  Not getting what you pay for.  I am in no way disagreeing with the spirit of the rules.  I am disagreeing with the letter of the rules.  Specifically the rule that makes flexible slots cost twice as much as fixed slots.
 
He wouldn't be more capable.  He'd be spending a more appropriate price for his flexible multipower.  To put it another way, he'd be more capable because he'd have some more points to spend on other things.  Which would put him on a more equal footing with another character who bought fixed slots (normal, single fixed slots, not the "system gaming" constructs above).
 
Your original construct was 180 points, with my revised cost proposal (which is just an initial estimate) it would be:
 
70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight
70 point Multipower
v 10.5  +14d6 Blast
v 9.9 +22 rPD/+22rED
v 9.9 66 meters of Flight
= 170.3 points (I kept the decimals just to be transparent about any round-offs.)
 
So the character would have another 10 points to spend elsewhere.
 
Now in this particular example (the "Starburst-type" multipower),you're not likely to see a fixed-slot version of this, since you'll probably need defenses, movement, and attacks all at the same time, much of the time.  But if there were such a character, the slots would cost 7, 6.6, and 6.6, respectively, for a savings of (3.5+3.3+3.3=) 10.1.  So another 10 points to spend, in effect compensating him for his lack of flexibility.
 
Yes, flexibility is valuable, but it's not worth the same as raw power.  And indeed the cost of every other form of flexibility in HERO acknowledges this.

Even within the same genre, differences in how sight is treated exist.  I don't believe I have ever seen a Supers comic suggest that a Super with really good eyesight, but no special senses, can see in total darkness.  Way back when I was a kid, I remember picking up Avengers #115.  They fought an unremarkable giant bug, and an equally unremarkable tribe of underground troglodyte humans.  The former had no eyes and the latter could see in the dark (infrared, I believe).  After they beat the bug in its pit, the Troglodytes poured water down to douse the lights.  "Even my synthezoid eyes are useless in total darkness" was the phrase I recall.  The only one on the team who could see (something must have been broken in Iron Man's armor...) was the Black Panther due to enhanced senses provided by the heart-shaped herb.
 
Now, in Hero terms, he paid points to be capable of seeing in the dark.  If his teammates paid for Enhanced Perception, or Enhanced Sight Perception, they got bonuses to see in every game session.  Shouldn't the character who paid to be able to see in the dark be able, at least on occasion, to have an advantage as a result over his teammates who spent their points on other abilities, and do not possess such an enhanced sense?

For the third time this thread, second time this page, I post this. 
Bolding mine. 

I'm not trying to figure it out.  I already know that total darkness is much more than a -4 penalty.  I'm offering a way for others to figure it out, in case they aren't convinced. 
 
I agree, but the RAW don't.  That's why I think I'm being generous.  For the sake of the game, I might allow the following:
 
Bright moon & stars = -4 penalty to Sight.
Dim moon & stars = -5 (generous - could range up to -7)
No light whatsoever = -6 (very generous - should be -8 at least)
 
And this is still subject to modifiers for the object being viewed (or that one is attempting to view).  If there's some especially shiny, sparkly object that nicely reflects what little light there may be, you might get some bonus to see it, that will partially counteract the darkness penalty.

I think "three senses" was pretty early - I recall an old (comic book) w/u of Rose which detailed her Visible Ego powers being perceivable by sight, hearing and smell, in addition to Mental sense, and those w/u's were 1e/2e IIRC.
 
6e modified the "three senses" rule to two senses, one being sight absent specific GM permission.  It also modified perceptibility to Obvious, Inobvious and Invisible.

Not really.  The Usable as Attack doesn't mean you are beating someone over the head with the VPP.  It means you can "force someone to have this power (or piece thereof).  There was-- well, I don't know if it was ever spelled out, but for some reason I'm remembering that there is enough in the text to at least imply it-- a sort of understanding that you can automatically hit willing targets with UAA: Life Support, Usable as Attack.  There.  You can force someone to have life support.
 
The Harbinger of Cheeze: Gun Pool, Usable as Attack.  You can give someone a gun.  Or rather, force them to have a gun, if they are not willing.  Who knows why you would force someone to have gun: maybe old 90's trench coat-over-a-catsuit-chic guy was framing all his victims, or arranging the crime scenes to look like suicide.....
 
Ah, the 90's trench coat.  The cape for guys too cool to have corny old capes, but still wanted someone flapping in the wind behind them in every scene.....
 
Damn.  Those things were as ubiquitous as brooding, little pouches, and one glowing eye.....
 
 

Guide to the Gods, by Marjorie Leach, might be useful to FH GMs in designing gods for settings. Or at least the table of contents might be, as a source of divine types you might not have thought of:
 
I Cosmogonical Deities
1  Primordial Beings
2 Male/Female Principle, Angdrogynous
3  Deities of the Universe, Space
4/5  Supreme Being, Great Spirit, High God/Creator Deities
 
II  Celestial Deities
6  Sky and Heaven Gods
7  Solar Gods: Dawn, Day, Light, Twilight, Eclipses
8  Lunar Gods: Eclipses
9 Gods of Night, Darkness
10  Stellar Gods: Constellations, Planets, Stars
 
III  Atmospheric Deities
11  Weather Gods: Thunder, Lightning, Rain, Wind, Rainbow, Drought
 
IV Terrestrial Deities
12  Animal/Bird Gods
13  Earth Gods: Land, Soil, Earthquakes
14  Fire Gods: Elemental, Domestic
15  Fresh Water Gods: Rivers, Lakes, Irrigation, Curative Waters
16  Metals: Mines, Minerals, Treasures
17  Nature Gods: Forest, Hills, Mountains, Stones, Trees
18  Sea Gods: Surf and Coastline, Seafarers and Navigation
 
V Life/Death Cycle Deities
19  Life: Birth, Procreation, Soul (in life). Longevity
20 Mankind: Men, Women, Children, Youth, Age
21  Fertility: Animal, Vegetable, Phallic
22  Disease Gods: Accident
23  Death Gods: The Dead, Soul (in death). Funereal, Embalming, Cemeteries
24  Afterworld/Underworld: Judgment, Soul (in death)
25  Resurrection/Rejuvination Deities
 
VI Economic Activities
26  Agriculture/Vegetation Gods
27  Deities of Domesticated Animals
28  Fishing: Fish Gods, Water Animals
29  Household Gods: Doors, Hearth, Home, etc.
30  Hunting: Gods of Wild Animals
31  Roads and Locations: Crossroads, Boundaries, Gates, Travelers
32  Trades and Crafts: Merchants, Markets, Artisans
33  Gods of Wealth: Abundance, Plenty, Prosperity
34  Gods of Non-Wealth: Famine, Hunger, Poverty
 
VII Socio-cultural Concepts
35  Abstract Deities
36  Arts: Music, Dancing, Poetry, Theater
37  Gods of the Cardinal Points
38  Culture: Teachers/Givers of, Lesser Creator Gods
39  Gods of Evil, Destructiveness
40 Gods of Destiny, Fate
41  Fortune: Luck, Good or Bad
42 Intellectual: Wisdom, Learning, Teaching, Scribes, Records, History
43  Justice: Law, Judgment, Equity, Government, Order, Morals, Oaths, Curses, Thieves
44 Love: Lust, Sexuality, Phallic, Lovers
45  Gods of Marriage
46 Medicine and Health: Body, Healing, Herbs, Senses
47 Pleasures: Happiness, Revelry, Festivals, Games
48  Gods of Time and Seasons: Calendar
49  Gods of War: Victory
50  Gods of Wine: Intoxicants, Narcotics, Drunkenness
 
VIII Religion
51  Religious Activities: Rituals, Initiation, Ceremonials
52  Divination, Prophecy
53  Magic, Sorcery
 
Okay, so you won't get detailed information about gods that you can crib. Even at more than 800 pages, there are so many gods the book can't give much more than a name and a source for more information, from the bibliography in the back. Here's an example, from a random page -- fire deities, as it happens.
 
Sakhadai  The god of fire of the Buriats. Also SakhidaiNoin, whose wife is Sakhala-Khatun. Siberia. (MacCulloch, 1964: 454; Klementz, 1925, 3: 4, II)
 
Sakhala, Sakhala-Khatun  The goddess and ruler of the fire with her husband Sakhadai (Sakhidai-Noin). The Buriats, Siberia. (MacCulloch, 1964: 454; Klementz, 1925,3:4)
 
Sakhri nad, Chulahi nad  The spirit of the hearth. The Oraon, India. (Roy, 1928: 72)
 
Savul  The fire-stick was deified as an individual god. Babylonia, Near East. (Sayce, 1898: 181)
 
Setcheti  An Egyptian fire god. (Budge, 1969, 1: 347)
 
Sethlans  Etruscan god of fire, god .of smiths—the artificer of the gods. Same as Vulcan, Hephaestus. Italy. (Rawlinson, 1885: 123;vonVacano, 1960: 19, 110;Pallottino, 1975: 142; Roscher, 1965, 4: 785)
 
Shahli milo  The god of fire, identified with the sun which is not addressed except as fire. The Choctaw Indians, Mississippi. (Spence, 1925, 3: 567-568)
 
Shulawitsi  The youthful god of fire and also of maize and hunting. He is a messenger for the sun. The Zuni, New Mexico. (Parsons, 1939: 175, 205; Tyier, 1964: 25; Stevenson, 1901/02: 33; Waters, 1950: 283-284)
 
Best if you can find it in a library, but really, the table of contents is probably enough unless you're really into obscure anthropology.
 
Dean Shomshak

Were you at my table, you'd have to justify why paying 1 END is worth a -1/4 discount and why it only lasting 300 Segments is worth a -1/4 discount.  And why it somehow only lasts 5 minutes.  And why you should be allowed to have an absolute effect, for that matter. 

I don't think any of the existing tools we have are perfectly suited to getting this peg in this particular hole.  I do think we can get this peg in this hole with something new.  I'm envisioning a minor houserule derived from Change Environment, with thanks to @redsash for setting me down this lane of thought. 
 
Change Environment spells out how to change the environment, and ambient darkness is just an environmental effect.  So in the same way that a Dispel Fire can put out a campfire despite the campfire not being explicitly built as a power or Suppress Wind can drop a kite from the sky despite the kite having no game statistics, let Suppress Dark turn off ambient darkness.  Therefore, "build" ambient darkness as CE -4 to normal sight, AoE 1m, 0 END.  That comes out to 14 AP which conveniently enough is the average result of 4d6, one die per point of penalty. 
So each 1d6 of AoE Suppress Dark will cancel a point of darkness penalty in its area. 

I think the distinction is the actual effect.  Flash affects the sensory organs of the target, whereas Darkness affects the environment.  If I've got sunglasses to protect me from bright lights being shines in my eyes, that's not going to help me see through thick fog and smoke.  If I can smell with the accuracy of a bloodhound, I'm going to be affected differently by having raw garlic shoved up my nose as opposed to having a strong wind blow away all traces of scent.
 
Flash and Darkness do different things.  I think they need to remain different powers.
 
However!  You could certainly make the case for folding Darkness into Change Environment, as Duke Bushido mentions.  In essence, that's what Darkness is - a change to the environment.

I think the distinction is the actual effect.  Flash affects the sensory organs of the target, whereas Darkness affects the environment.  If I've got sunglasses to protect me from bright lights being shines in my eyes, that's not going to help me see through thick fog and smoke.  If I can smell with the accuracy of a bloodhound, I'm going to be affected differently by having raw garlic shoved up my nose as opposed to having a strong wind blow away all traces of scent.
 
Flash and Darkness do different things.  I think they need to remain different powers.
 
However!  You could certainly make the case for folding Darkness into Change Environment, as Duke Bushido mentions.  In essence, that's what Darkness is - a change to the environment.

We probably don't need to continue speculating on this further until we hear back from the OP.

I think you are looking at Teleport UAA, with both Megascale Distance and Megascale Range, to draw the weapon to you.  I'd customize a Trigger ("When  I summon the weapon") or Delayed Effect (it teleports later, when I require it) advantage so the weapon he has touched will teleport to him at whatever later point he decides.  Finally, better slap IPE on this so it is not obvious that he is applying that Triggered Teleport to every weapon he touches.
 
You and your GM will need to define a "weapon", and whether limiting the ability to weapons mandates a Limitation.

Well , does a bomb fit the definition of a Weapon?  Does a Western Electric Model 308 Telephone meet the definition? If you believe those 50’s and 60’s TV shows, it’s a near lethal bludgeoned. Does a Brick? I think that could be avoided be defining the weapons to strictly designed as melee and ranged weapons. (Though teleporting the bomb to one’s hands would make a great plot twist. How much time was on that timer?)