RDU Neil

I went out of my way to avoid watching trailers and reading spoilers so that I'd look at the movie with the freshest eyes possible. I just saw it this week and, going back to read this thread, I must say that I agree with almost every negative comment made about the movie so far.
 
1) Wooden acting- not just Danvers but Fury, the Rambeau's, the Skrulls, the Kree
2) Bad choice of accents was distracting - minor quibble but part of blending in as a shapeshifter is doing the appropriate accent. Doing the right accent to match your target should be automatic.
3) Unmemorable or non-existent plot
4) Loss of Fury's eye - one of the low points of the MCU so far
5) Lame Skrull shapeshifting
6) Lame Skrull motivations, the movie would have been much better with both Kree and Skrull as villains
7) Captain Marvel way overpowered at the end compared to anyone else in the MCU (and inconsistent power levels earlier in the movie)
8 ) Unbelievable that a Skrull scientist wouldn't recognize space coordinates or at least suspect they were coordinates which were in space
9) Calling the invention a "lightspeed" engine was confusing when calling it any other sci-fi sounding name would have at least not have sounded retro compared to the tech the Kree already had.
10) Also unbelievably stupid that a Kree scientist would give a breakthrough lightspeed engine to a race of shapeshifters who had a grudge against her race. Superior speed is a military weapon. Any scientist who is a member of a spacefaring race which had been at war for decades would know that superior speed is a weapon rather than a tool which would bring peace.
11) I kept expecting Korvac to do something special but he never did. If they wanted Korvac to be seen but do nothing, they should have had him standing at Ronan's side, not be part of the Kree's SEAL team.
12) Abysmally stupid cat alien
 
I understand that people liked the Men in Black movies with their stupid aliens with stupid powers. But Nick Fury was holding the damned cat when the damned cat picked four aliens up off the floor, which means that Nick Fury was holding the weight of a cat plus four aliens in his outstretched arms. I can accept a super-strong alien cat. I can't accept a super-strong alien cat which temporarily gives Nick Fury super-strength just long enough for the cat to swallow the aliens. No, that was just bad writing.
 
The movie would have been so much better if the Skrull had been uneasy and scared of the cat the whole movie, while the cat was nothing else other than a cat for the whole movie. That would have just made the alien seem quirky and alien rather than introducing the cat as being a part of a whole other race of aliens which had no justification at all for why it was on Earth, much less in that place at that point in time.
 
====
 
I don't follow actors and actresses, had no idea who Larsen was, and go out of my way to avoid hearing spoilers but it penetrated even my intense disinterest that Larson was playing up the feminist angle of the movie as she was making the talk show circuit promoting the movie. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie didn't come across as some political manifesto. I noted the same feminist/anti-male/whatever scenes in the movie which others mentioned, but honestly, I see those all the times in movies, TV shows, and commercials anyway and this movie wasn't any more blatant than anything else in pop culture. The Carol Danvers character started off her superhero career as Ms. Marvel so I wouldn't have been exactly shocked to have seen a heck of a lot more than her burning the face off of Arnold Schwarzeneger and stealing a rude guy's bike.
 
Anyway, given this movie, if the Captain Marvel character were to literally disappear from the MCU, I would not be sad at all. And I say that as a big fan of Carol Danvers, Ms. Marvel and Binary from the comics. I didn't like the movie overall. When it inevitably shows up on TV with another MCU movie on another station, I'll tune in to any other MCU movie rather than watch Captain Marvel. I needed to see it to set up the next Avengers movie. But I don't feel a need to see it over and over like I do some MCU movies which I watch whenever I need to feel better.
 
I thought Wonder Woman was much, much better than Captain Marvel. But I think that's true because of Chris Pine vs Jackson, rather than because of the leading ladies. I thought Gadot was better than Larson but not by a huge margin. But Gadot worked off of Pine wonderfully while Larson and Jackson had no chemistry on any level (whether lovers, friends, people who happened to be on the same planet at the same time, etc.). And I say that as a Marvel fan, not a DC fan, and as someone who has never cared much for the Wonder Woman character.
 
My wife fell asleep during Captain Marvel, I woke her up so I wouldn't have to endure it alone. And she was the one who was pushing for us to go see it sooner rather than later.
 
On the good side,
 
a) Ronan the Accuser looked better in this movie without the ridiculous face paint.
b) Nice cameo by Phil Coulson. I kept wanting him to have more dialogue because his actor knows how to deliver a line.
c) I didn't mind that the "Avenger" name was Carol's call-sign. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. In the context of the movie, it made sense.
d) The de-aged Fury looked good. If I didn't know he was old, I wouldn't have guessed it from the SFX.
e) I liked having both blue Kree and pink Kree and the fact that Captain Marvel didn't comment on it. Logically it should have been just a background fact of life to her and she shouldn't have taken special note of it.
f) The Rambeau's didn't add anything special to the movie for me but I can see why they were there as part of the fan service.
g) I didn't mind Fury trying to be funny: everything is all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
 

"It depends."  
 
Wonder Woman blocks bullets with her bracelets.  That is a thing she does.  
 
Captain America blocks all kinds of things with his shield.  That is a thing he does.  
 
Yoda, and other Force users, block lasers with their lightsaber.  Other people in the Star Wars setting don't do that.
 
Most people in those settings don't do those things.  
 
What do Wonder Woman, Captain America, and Yoda, buy so that they can do those things, that other people can't?
 
 
There, that.  How much does that cost?  
 
Han Solo can't pick up a lightsaber and deflect lasers.  Yoda can.  What does Yoda buy that gives him "justification"?  
 
Robin can't put on shiny metal bracelets and deflect bullets.  What does Wonder Woman buy that lets her do that?  
 
Most people in the Marvel universe couldn't pick up Cap's shield and deflect Thor's hammer, or bullets, or lasers.  What does Cap buy that lets him do that?

We had five editions where if you wanted to block ranged attacks you had to pay points.  We also had a couple of instances, before 4th edition came out, where the answer was "It depends."  Fantasy Hero, with shields vs. arrows, for instance.  
 
Now, the answer is completely "It depends."  Depends on what?   (This is supposed to be a universal system, right?)
 
I'm with Ninja-Bear.  He asked, what do you need to do if you want to do it reliably?  He asked me, in fact, and my answer was:  most likely, buy Deflection at no range.  Because in 6th edition, Deflection is the thing you buy if you want to Block ranged attacks, at range, without "it depends".  
 
But then why do Wonder Woman and Captain America and Yoda pay points to buy Deflection to deflect bullets and lasers, when it depends?  

Yes, but the game doesn't provide me with a rule/mechanic when it used to, and that is crap design for a system created to simulate action adventure.
 
 
And again... I'm supposed to do all the work to come up with a massive chart that calculates, speed, size, angle of attack, etc., so that I can use it for every ranged attack? Now that is utter crap, and such a set of calculations should be created and provided with such a system expectation, not expected to be part of a GMs prep. 
 
If they want to go this route then they have to do a lot more of the work... and any chart of size/velocity/angle of attack should be applicable to ALL attacks, not just ranged (a fist at your face is really only different from a bullet at your face in that it is usually slower and more obvious)... I mean... do we now have to calculate the velocity times mass for all attacks in order to resolve them? This is just ridiculous. What if there was a simple chart that broke down the basic categories of likely attack that were progressively more and more difficult to deflect... you know... LIKE THE ONE THAT USED TO BE IN THE GAME!
 
This whole deal is just one of the clearest examples of the mindset that tossed out playability for that of intricate thought problem consistency.
 
The simple fact is that everyone grokked "block as everyman skill" and they also grokked "missile deflect as special ability" without any consternation. It only became an issue with the over-thinking/over-engineering of later editions.
 
(Heck, if you want to over-engineer, I'd much prefer if they took out Block as an everyman ability. Anyone with even a passing partaking of hand-to-hand combat (sport or real) knows that most "blocks" are really just "taking the shot on a less vulnerable location, like the forearm or shoulder, and a real 'block' tends to be punching/kicking away an attack, thus you have to be able to move/hurt that attack for it to work. Make block a graduated skill/ability similar to 4th Ed Missile Deflection. Level 1 - block any barehanded attack of the same relative STR, speed and size or less, Level 2 - block hand attacks up to twice the STR, speed and size, Level 3 - Block up to 5x STR, Level 4 - block all Hth... whatever. That would be way better than current standing. )

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

I think shields, in my mind... do three things... and the GM and player have to decide which one applies for each attack.
 
A shield can
 a) Deflect a hand to hand attack (stop all damage) thus provide plusses to Block,
b) Give a character the Missile Deflect power against defined attacks (thrown objects, arrow, of a certain mass or less), or
c) Give a character "Cover" in terms of increased DCV... but that cover can be subject to "blow through"
 
For each attack, the best option is chosen (against a sword strock, plusses to Block, vs. an arrow fusillade, Missile Deflect... against an arrow targeted specifically at them by a highly skilled archer, maybe "Cover" is better) ... and against some attacks, the shield is essentially useless (that tactical plasma rifle... COVER... but blow through means your head is gone anyway).

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

Yes, but the game doesn't provide me with a rule/mechanic when it used to, and that is crap design for a system created to simulate action adventure.
 
 
And again... I'm supposed to do all the work to come up with a massive chart that calculates, speed, size, angle of attack, etc., so that I can use it for every ranged attack? Now that is utter crap, and such a set of calculations should be created and provided with such a system expectation, not expected to be part of a GMs prep. 
 
If they want to go this route then they have to do a lot more of the work... and any chart of size/velocity/angle of attack should be applicable to ALL attacks, not just ranged (a fist at your face is really only different from a bullet at your face in that it is usually slower and more obvious)... I mean... do we now have to calculate the velocity times mass for all attacks in order to resolve them? This is just ridiculous. What if there was a simple chart that broke down the basic categories of likely attack that were progressively more and more difficult to deflect... you know... LIKE THE ONE THAT USED TO BE IN THE GAME!
 
This whole deal is just one of the clearest examples of the mindset that tossed out playability for that of intricate thought problem consistency.
 
The simple fact is that everyone grokked "block as everyman skill" and they also grokked "missile deflect as special ability" without any consternation. It only became an issue with the over-thinking/over-engineering of later editions.
 
(Heck, if you want to over-engineer, I'd much prefer if they took out Block as an everyman ability. Anyone with even a passing partaking of hand-to-hand combat (sport or real) knows that most "blocks" are really just "taking the shot on a less vulnerable location, like the forearm or shoulder, and a real 'block' tends to be punching/kicking away an attack, thus you have to be able to move/hurt that attack for it to work. Make block a graduated skill/ability similar to 4th Ed Missile Deflection. Level 1 - block any barehanded attack of the same relative STR, speed and size or less, Level 2 - block hand attacks up to twice the STR, speed and size, Level 3 - Block up to 5x STR, Level 4 - block all Hth... whatever. That would be way better than current standing. )

In real life, some people can Block some projectiles -- assuming we're defining "hit the ball with the bat" and similar activities as a use of the Block maneuver.  Typically the people who can do that are skilled via training (baseball, tennis, or hockey players) and the projectiles they can Block are slow-moving and fairly large (muscle powered or similar).  Some people can, under extremely controlled circumstances and with great training, Block bullets, or at least appear to; the magician's bullet-catching trick has resulted in deaths, so we can stipulate that that's a real thing (but not something that can be done regularly in combat).  People's ability to do this seems to be based mostly on training with some natural aptitude (DEX? CV?), which in the game we'd represent by paying points.  
 
In most fiction the HERO System intends to emulate, some people can Block some projectiles.  From 1st through 5th editions, typically the people who can do that have bought some kind of special ability to do so.  The Missile Deflection Power had an increasing cost depending on the types of projectiles the person could Block: 5 points for thrown objects, 10 points for arrows and similar projectiles, 15 points for bullets and shrapnel, and 20 points for everything -- up to and including lasers, tachyon beams, and so on.  1st through 3rd editions gave Powers more implied special effects for genre simulation; Powers there were more explicitly "things superheroes can do" with limited exceptions for building weapons, and Missile Deflection also was its own Power in 1-3e with its own rules for use, rather than using the Block mechanic, but I'll stipulate that it's close enough.  Missile Deflection, especially in 1-3e, was strongly implied to be what you used to represent Captain America's shield, Wonder Woman's bracelets, the Jedi's ability to block blaster bolts with their lightsaber and the Force.
 
Sixth edition got a little more... gooey, as regards Blocking and ranged attacks.  
 
 
Did the Thing buy Missile Deflection in his 1st through 5th edition incarnations?  If this was a thing (NPI) he did regularly, then I'd say yes.  I'd assume he'd have to buy something in 6e to do that as well.
 
 
In 1-5e it was made pretty clear.  I'm not sure where the "Just bad game design!" is you're talking about...
 
But presumably skilled tennis players, baseball players, and so on, have spent points on something to represent their skill at their game?  In the same way that wrestlers have spent points on their fighting ability?  And runners have spent points on their abilities?  And... and... and... 
 
 
We assume a starting point for player characters and their antagonist equivalents.  We use some common sense for who can do what.  
 
Can Aunt May Block a punch?  Does it matter if that punch is from a normal or from Galactus?  Common sense says no, and I'm pretty comfortable with that.  In most of her depictions she has one or more Disadvantages/Complications to the effect of "frail and elderly" and I'm fine with it being assumed that her inability to Block regular attacks is part of that.  Likewise, can a baby Block a punch, or drive a car, or go to work and earn a living?  Physical Limitation: Baby assumes they don't have the Everyman TF: Car, PS: Job (11-), or even 4 points in their native language.  
 
Can somebody do something (edit) most people (/edit) can't?  If so, then they pay points for it.  In 1e through 5er, Blocking ranged attacks was one of those things.  In 6th edition?  That's what this thread is about.  (edit)  Can somebody not do something most people can?  That's a limitation of some kind.  A Complication, Disadvantage, Limited Power, etc. (/edit)

I think shields, in my mind... do three things... and the GM and player have to decide which one applies for each attack.
 
A shield can
 a) Deflect a hand to hand attack (stop all damage) thus provide plusses to Block,
b) Give a character the Missile Deflect power against defined attacks (thrown objects, arrow, of a certain mass or less), or
c) Give a character "Cover" in terms of increased DCV... but that cover can be subject to "blow through"
 
For each attack, the best option is chosen (against a sword strock, plusses to Block, vs. an arrow fusillade, Missile Deflect... against an arrow targeted specifically at them by a highly skilled archer, maybe "Cover" is better) ... and against some attacks, the shield is essentially useless (that tactical plasma rifle... COVER... but blow through means your head is gone anyway).

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

Because "to hit" in HERO is a defined matter of OCV vs. DCV or OCV vs. OCV... not a matter of skill roll modifiers. If I'm supposed to be adding modifiers to the OCV vs. OCV of a Missile Deflect effectively I'm saying "Has X OCV to hit, but X+Y OCV for avoiding block" which has NEVER been how Block is defined. 
 
You never say, "You are going to Block? Ok... roll to hit an 19 OCV?"  And the players are like, "He has a 19 OCV?"   and you reply, "Oh, no, he has an 8 OCV, but I'm giving him +11 vs. being blocked because his fist is really small and fast and hard to see... oh, and do you have gauntlets on, 'cause you can't block unless you have gauntlets on"... 
 
... that would never be the case with Block... but that is exactly how Missile Deflect is being handled now, in an attempt to make it "more consistent"with Block.
 
If one PC is going to have difficulty blocking an opponent, it isn't a matter of situational modifiers... it is because that opponent has a much better OCV. yes... environmental modifiers can occur, but they are minor changes and/or not often called into play. With Missile Deflect the way it is, you are saying that every use of it requires massive environmental modifiers that don't apply elsewhere.
 
Now this raises the question:
"Well, if those modifiers apply to Missile Deflect, what about when the martial artist just blocks Zippy the Shrinking Man who flies really fast and does a lot of move-throughs... he is small and hard to see and moves fast... shouldn't the Block have massive modifiers?"
And now you are in dangerous territory, because you applied "realistic modifiers" that essentially, to be fair, just gave the shrinking and flying guy a bunch of OCV bonuses for free, which is definitely not the intent of the game. 
 
At minimum you've opened the door to the GM being expected to apply environmental and other modifiers to every single "to hit" scenario, some subtle and some massive in their effect on resolution.
 
There is a whole can of worms opened with this.
 
Let's look at it from the POV of a character who is a superhero type who SHOULD be able to Missile Deflect with relative ease. In the past, Ninja-Star only needed to buy the level of Deflect that she felt appropriate... then in those situations, she gets a straight up OCV vs. OCV roll.  Simple.  Under 6th, Ninja-Star has to say, "Hey, GM... what is the max possible minuses you'd give me to deflect arrows, missiles, bullets..." and assuming the GM could provide an answer, she'd have to buy Skill Levels enough to offset the max possible penalties in order to make her character concept work? And she HAS to have a focus of some sort now?
 
Again, by saying it is "realistic" to allow it for everyone, you are by default making what used to be a simple, very common superheroic ability much more difficult and crunchy and arbitrary.

But here again... look at the source material that is axiomatic to HERO. You don't see every grunt on the field knocking arrows out of the air, let alone trying. You never see the shieldless fighters under a hail of arrow waving their swords around trying to swat them aside. The only ones who do it are the big, badass named characters WHO PAID POINTS FOR THE ABILITY because that is what sets them apart. 
 
 
Right... and now we have all these caveats that don't apply elsewhere, because making this seemingly "consistent" change opens up a huge can of worms.
 
The new ruling doesn't match source material, it doesn't match reality and it makes play more complicated and GMing more difficult. 
 
Pure... bad... design.

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

Toxxus nails it for me.  It made what should be an important element of Fury's backstory [https://www.polygon.com/2019/3/4/18241645/nick-fury-loses-eye-marvel-comics]- instead it was played for a cheap laugh.
 
Sure, a cat might lash out.  How many cat owners are missing an eye because of Fluffy or Snowball?  Many cat owners have small kids.  How many cat-related mutilations do you hear about?

Aside from making the stupid assertion that 40 year old white men aren't capable of critiquing A Wrinkle in Time*, I didn't find anything particularly offensive or targeted as anti-40 year old white male about the speech, taken in context. My takeaway was that she wanted to see more female critics in the mix, who approach movies aimed at women from a female perspective. And I think it's a valid point. My wife and I like pretty much the same kind of stuff, but when discussing different shows, it's very clear that she approaches stories from a completely different angle than I do. Things that bug me don't bug her and vice versa.
 
 
*A good critic can apply fairly objective criteria, and also take note that they're only providing one perspective. A Wrinkle in Time had some objective problems based on fairly universal storytelling principles. The real problem she's seeing is that most critics suck at their craft, and that Rotten Tomatoes frequently lists hacks who can't handle basic grammar in the "pro" column on their site. But Larson's main point was that she wasn't being interviewed by any female critics when on the CM press tour. Which is kind of silly, given that there are plenty of female critics, even if lesser known, who have good genre knowledge and might better represent the target audience for her movie.

She rolled over in bed and whispered in his ear, “sweetie, don’t see my movie, it’s not for you.”

I don't like the idea that criticizing 40 year olds is gerontophobic.  I strongly reject this idea.  Please, please God let it not be true.  You know some people say that 40 is the new 20.

I'm probably echoing what Pegasus said, but...
 
1. what do you think is the best genre for teaching the 6e rules?
Purely IMO, but I'd say grab Champions Complete and keep rule use to that book. The other option is to run a heroic genre that your players like... Low Fantasy or Zombie Apocalypse or something that is very resonant. Most importantly, you as the GM should enjoy it
 
2. Is it best to start with pre-gen characters?
Without a doubt, for two reasons. You want you players to "play the game" not "work the system" right off the bat... and two, your character designs will go a long way toward setting the standard for games going forward. They will look at these characters as examplars and tend to follow them. Teach your players to play HERO the way YOU want them to play HERO.
 
3. Which parts of the rules are most important to teach first?
To me, HERO is about task resolution (bellcurve 3d6) and simulating action adventure combats. That is what the SYSTEM is designed to do. Note that it isn't enough to create a game. A game requires the reason/purpose for playing in the first place, goals for what you want to achieve in play, etc. With HERO you are creating the game you want, so you need to be clear on those. "I want this game to simulate great episodes of a zombie apocalypse show, where it is about disparate people banding together to survive and maybe, maybe rebuild!"  which is very different from, "I want this game to simulate Fallout 4, so you all feel like a group of Vault Dwellers exploring the surface!" which is very differnet from, "I want to play a D&D like game, but with HERO rules" which is altogether different and sets different expectations. 
 
4. What's the best way to start playing?
If you have pre-gens, and I again suggest that, one thing I like is to leave a couple things open... like "Important Contact" and "Important Person (DNPC) and have the players come up with those things, knowing they will be immediately part of the game... that the player is creating part of the world by inventing people who are meaningful.  Then I like to do a "shared story telling" session designed to set the groundwork on how the PCs all know each other and why they are together. Do NOT role play out the difficult, awkward, grinding of getting the PCs together. The game starts once they are all "on the team" so to speak. I like to have each player come up with a very short, three sentence origin. Lots of details left open. "Major Magma was a mutant whose powers were really dangerous. He almost ended up in prison or dead, but the Army approached his parents with a training and powers support program. He has excelled in the Army and become one of a select few military supers." Then go around and have the next PC do the same. Once done... go back and go around again, asking leading questions. "OK... how did Major Magma become a well known hero during the California earthquake?"   And give each PC a scenario.  Then go around with, "How did Major Magma get assisted by Quiet Fury during the gang war?" and each player makes up a story that connects their charcter with another.  By this time, most players are using other stories to feed their own.  End with, "What brought you together four months ago, and why have you continued to team up?" or whatever is appropriate. The players get to tell stories and therefore make up part of the world and are bought into "being a team" and that doesn't have to become a grind of the early sessions.
 
5. What's the best way to introduce combat?
IMO, the very first scene of the very first game should be "in medius res" and start with, "The zombie stumbles from the alley with a snarl reaching for you with rotted, grasping hands. What do you do?" or whatever is important. Put them right into a very descriptive, action scene against enemies they should do well against... and let them react to it. IMO, I always tell players, "Don't look through the book for rules on what you can do... put yourself in your charcters shoes and react accordingly, and we'll find the rule that best simulates that. You are a ex-truck driver with a sawed off shotgun and a machete, scrounging for food... a zombie is coming for your brains.  What do you do!" As they describe it, you can apply the appropriate ruling. "I go for an all out swing, trying to cave the things head in with my machete!" (Great, that's an attack, targeting the head, here's how we do that...) or "I jump back, trying to get way, (Cool, we'll call that a dodge, here's how we do that...) etc. 
 
6. What sort of handouts?
eh... I'd keep these minimal. Character sheets, maybe a quick guide to key stats/numbers on the sheet. I'm not a big handout guy.
 
7. Have you ever tried teaching 6e using the 3e games?
I don't think of it this way... more of a larger concept, "HERO enables all kinds of action adventure characters to be built with a base set of rules. Not all rules/powers/abilities/skills etc., apply to all games, but are there IF they are applicable for the kind of characters, genre we want to play. The idea is to use the parts of HERO we all feel best create the game we all want to play. (I'm personally really big on everything being group oriented and integrated, to avoid players coming to the table with their individual expectations already baked into their character, rather than building up those expectations together with the group.)

Strange, her equally successful pilot buddy was acting circles around her with her ability to convey a range of powerful emotions.
 
 
She shoots the man's face on the True Lies poster and leaves Jamie Curtis unscathed. 
The Kree scanning device intones, "Human Male.  Threat level low to none.".
A guy is rude to her so she steals his motorcycle.
 
There were others, but I've already forgotten them.
 
It was beyond stupid.  He's been nothing but lovey dovey to the Flerkin up to this point and the space-cat clearly enjoys his attention; fights on his behalf; recognizes friends from foes; and then out of nowhere blinds him.  Later, they're inexplicably on good terms again.
Sorry, but after something takes your eye you don't continue to let it roam your office in case it wants to be petted and/or take your last eyeball.
 
Dumb as !@#$.  Easily the worst part of the movie.

*full disclosure: I haven't seen the film yet
 
That aside, some things I've read and quotes from the film make it at least possible that her dour and unemotional approach is on purpose, that its part of her conditioning that she may fight and break free from in another film (Ms Larson has 6 more films on contract, after all).  Its probably not the most winning and appealing approach to take, but it might make for an interesting character arc over time, if that is what is happening.

Yes... it occurred to me afterwards that this might be what they were aiming for... let's not just set the movie in the '90s, but film the movie LIKE IT WAS A 90s movie... and that was a horrible choice.
 
This movie also asked no hard questions... it had no thematic heart. What was this movie about? Winter Soldier asked about fear and safety at the expense of freedom, Black Panther was about isolationism, tribalism, colonial diaspora, etc., Civil War was about responsibility of power and making wrong decisions, Wonder Woman was about acknowledging that humanity really is shitty but there are things worth fighting for... Captain Marvel was about nothing... what... maybe checking the fan-service boxes for pop-culture references and the shallowest, most superficial "grrrrl power"... while sanitizing it of any thing remotely weighty or emotionally resonant. Heck, Ant-Man & the Wasp was WAY better and even at second billing, Hope Van Dyne had more emotional resonance (she wants her mom back) and toughness (You'd never have been caught... now THAT'S a line!)... than CM had.
 
And if the Skrulls really were happy homemaker refugees... then why did they even try to kill Danvers at the phone booth or copy Coulson and attack Fury. That made no sense at all at that point, because their Leader already knew that CM was special after hooking her up to the machine. Heck... why leave that last Skrull to get butchered for no reason by Yon-Rogg? What did that serve?

This movie was made for lowest common denominator, bland, avoiding controversy or complexity of any kind mindsets. This, along with the awful "bro humor" of GotG are supposed to be the future of Marvel? No thank you.

Wow it was bad.
 
I'm sad to say, but Marvel made its first really bad movie. (I've not read other comments in this thread, yet, but I will.)
 
The writing and directing were the level of a bad after-school special. The Action scenes were badly staged, the plot was... pointless. Everyone, not just Larson, was stiff and awkward, with dialogue that was completely flat. The movie lacked heart in every way... I honestly shocked that this was allowed to be released. It didn't know if it wanted to be Guardians funny (it wasn't) or Avengers dramatic (it wasn't) or Ant-Man heartfelt (it wasn't)... it was a mess.
 
My wife was very unhappy. She wanted... badly... to like it and said, "Like thirty minutes in, I realized, I just didn't care about any of it. It was so stiff and just... whatever. I kept saying, "But this is Captain Marvel!" and am just SO disappointed."
 
So bad... I'm frankly amazed Feige let this be released.