mmshah

Re: 5pt+ Limited CSLs or 2 pt CSLs redundant? I'm talking about Limited CSLs, CSLs with limitations, these can only be used for OCV. The same is true for 2 pt CSLs.

Under the 6E (and 5E, but OCV is not a stat in 5E) rules any limited CSL can only be applied to OCV, since OCV directly costs 5 points, this would make 8 or 10 pt CSLs that are limited pointless, since OCV (with the same limitation) is cheaper. Even 5 pt Limited CSLs would be worse then just Limited OCV (since they would not apply to all combat and are not persistent). Also 2 pt CSLs are only usable for OCV also, a Limited OCV would seem a simpler way to buy this. My question comes in the pricing of Limited OCV. Do I assign a value for a limitation on OCV consistent with equivalent pricing of CSLs? Or do I assign a value for the limitation of what I think its worth (more along the lines of Limited Power pricing guidelines)? Here's an example to show what I mean. 2 pt CSL gives +1 OCV to 1 attack +1 OCV 5 AP (Limited Power, only for 1 attack - 1 1/4, Nonpersistent -1/4) 2 RP 3 pt CSL gives +1 OCV to 3 maneuvers or +1 DCV (ranged or HTH or possibly both dependent on the maneuvers, or +Damage) +1 OCV 5 AP (Limited Power, only for 3 maneuvers - 1/2, NonPersistent -1/4) 3 RP For the 2 point CSL maybe the value for Limited Power is about right, however for the 3 pt CSL a value of -1/2 of Limited Power for just 3 maneuvers with no ability to add to DCV or Damage seems pretty incorrect. Any suggestions of what is a fair value for this, or should I just ignore that and try to follow the pricing of the CSLs? Another example would be what would be a fair price for (-Limited Power Only for HtH) on OCV? At the very least it has to be -1/4. Thanks

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) Thinking about this some more I came up with the following: Instead of comparing DN to RD or a combination of RD and PD/ED, which seems to come out in RD/ED/PD's favor. Lets compare a Limited form of DN (Only works on Stun -1/2) combined with a little RD versus the combo of RD/ED/PD that we did before. The reason for doing this is simple the amount of Body dealt by any attack is generally alot less then the Stun, so we don't need alot of ED/PD for the Body of an attack in fact its overkill but its necessary since we need it cover the Stun of an attack. So here goes: 12d6 DN (Only versus Stun -1/2) 40 Points 12 rPD 18 Points versus 12 rPD 18 Points 40 PD Now versus a Normal Attack the DN combo stops on average 12 Body and 54 Stun The RD/PD combo stops 52 Body and 52 Stun So as I noted the 52 Body is way overkill and the DN stops slightly more Stun on average. Now versus a Killing Attack: The DN combo stops 12 Body and 40 Stun The RD/PD combo stops 12 Body and 52 Stun This is due to the fact that Killing Attacks per die don't deal much Stun, thus it is much cheaper to stop the Stun of Killing Attacks by buying PD/ED. DN has the advantage that it still works on NNDs and AVLDs. Yes there is the DN adder to bypass DN but theres also penerating and Armor Piercing to bypass PD/ED. Even so it seems even in this scenario the RD/PD/ED case generally works out better. A Minor tweak I thought of, only buy enough levels of DN to round in your favor for example 1 level of DN with Only Stun Limitation costs 3 Points but 2 levels costs 7 Points, so instead buy 1 level of DN and 4 Points of normal defense (or some RD if you prefer) if you were going to only purchase 10 Points worth. Likewise if you want to buy more levels make sure it rounds in your favor or buy a level less and buy a few points of RD or PD to cover the difference. If someone can suggest a way to improve upon this maybe we can a way to make DN decent.

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) Opps I didnt notice the change in 6th ED to stun multipliers of Killing Attacks will go back and correct it.

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) Lairian while your compairsion is valid for Resistant Defenses vs Damage Negation, you should really compare Damage Negation vs a combination of Resistant Defenses and Normal ED or PD, since on average 1 level of DN stops 3.5 stun and 1 body of a normal attack or 3.5/3 Body and (3.5*2)/3 = 2.33 Stun of a Killing Attack, since the Body and Stun Damages inflicted by a die roll are not equal buying only Resistant Defenses as a comparison is not the right evalutaion. Instead use something like the following since 1 level of DN costs 5 Points, buy 1 Point of RD (1.5 Points) and 3.5 Points of normal ED/PD and compare with that. If you do that comparison you get the same conclusion you reached but the RD and PD/ED combination is better even for the Stun of a Non-Advantaged Non-Killing Attack as well. If your wondering how I came up with the numbers for Killing Attack Damage its like this, 3.5 Body Damage is obvious the /3 is because 3 DCs = 1 die of Killing Attack Damage. Now while in a particular case this may not be what happens (ie if we reduce 1 DC from 1 die of Killing Attack Damage we make it into 1/2d6) it is still the right number to use because we do not know how many DCs of Killing Attack may be used against us or how many levels of DN we wish to buy, all combinations are equally valid, thus we are using the average. The 2 factor in the Stun Damage comes from the average Stun Multiplier. A Clever person may have figured out that the average given above is not 100% correct due to what I will call rounding error. For example since all combinations of Attack Damage and levels of DN are possible we have the following: If we are attacked by a 3d6 Killing Attack with say 5 Levels of DN, then 3 Levels of the DN go exactly as the average stated above but the last 2 levels reduce 1 die of Killing Attack to 1 pip, which means a loss of the following: 1d6 Killing Attack = 3.5 Body, 7 Stun 1 pip Killing Attack = 1 Body, 2 Stun So we lose 2.5 Body, and 5 Stun for 2 levels of DN which has to average in with the average of the previous 3 levels of DN, so now I think you see what I mean by rounding error, every 3 Levels of DN counts as above, but any odd remainder will change the average slightly. Having no knowledge of the Strength of the Attack used and the levels of DN we wish to buy there is no way to compute the average of the remainder term with the levels of DN divisible by 3. But it will only change the average slightly. We can however do a best case analysis for DN. That would be the following: 3 level of DN stops: 3.5 Body and (3.5*2) Stun of a Killing Attack from the very beginning 2 levels of DN stops can reduce a 1d6+1 attack to 1/2d6 or 1d6 to 1 pip, which is the same reduction in damage of 2.5 Body and 2.5*(2) Stun 1 Level of DN reduces a 1d6 attack to 1/2d6, 1d6+1 to 1d6 or 1/2d6 to 1 pip, the first is the best case scenario for DN so we choose that getting: 1.5 Body and 1.5*(2) Stun Per DC this works out to: 3.5/3 = 1.166 Body 2.33 Stun 1.25 Body 2.5 Stun 1.5 Body 3 Stun Thus 1 level of rounding is the best case scenario for DN giving 1.5 Body and 3 Stun of a Killing Attack stopped per 5 points, but we can buy 1.5 RD for 2.25 Points and another 2.75 ED/PD for 5 Points also stopping 1.5 Body and 4 Stun which is slightly better. So even in the best case scenario for DN it stops less damage. By best case scenario I mean by rounding not luck of the die roll, clearly that will favor DN since RD/PD/ED are just flat numbers.

This question applies to 5ER as well as 6E I guess so here goes. In 6th Naked Advantages are treated as "flat" powers as far as Negative Adjustment powers are concerned, so how is it treated for a Positive Adjustment? In 5ER I had always used the 1 CP rule, meaning whatever 1 CP more buys you is what you get. Here's an example: Aid 5 Points to the following Naked Advantage: 10 CP Naked Advantage +1/2 Red END 0 for upto 20 STR Makes it a 15 Point power that can then be used for upto 30 STR. Is this correct? Thanks

How does Autofire Absorption work in 6th Ed, if at all? In 5ER, there was a blurb describing it under the Absorption section, but now Absorption doesn't use dice at all, so I'm wondering how it works. Thanks

Re: 6E Speedster Suite Do a VPP or MP for Teleportation, since you probably don't need all of those advantages at the same time, you'll save alot of points.

Re: March of the Munchkin I believe with the new Increased Maximum Effect on Absorption, that the White Knight Defense can be sustained forever, of course when the points fade your in trouble.

Re: 6th Edition Question: New Powers? You can probably use some form of Trigger or Uncontrolled to circumvent the no Persistent Restriction on Healing. But even without it I'd still use it in place of more Regen, it works as long as your not Stunned or KO'ed which should be good enough most of the time add in 1 point of Regen so you won't bleed to death if you like. And another question someone asked, does Healing have half-effect on Body/Stun since Healing is an Adjustment power?

Re: 6th Edition Question: New Powers? A few people have mentioned it but, the following power seems to be a good replacement for Regeneration: Healing BODY 1/2d6, Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/4), Constant (+1/2) (19 Active Points); Self Only (-1/2) Real Cost 13 Thats 3 Character points of Body per Turn, rolled 1/2d6 per phase. Also you can buy Expanded Effect to cover END and Stun if you like. This was also legal in 5ER, but there are some nice advatanges in 6E for it, first reduced cost of the Constant and Persistent advantages, secondly BODY is only 1 char point now, (Note: Stun and END are cheaper too), and lastly Regeneration has gone up in price now making this a good alternative. For 13 Char points you get 3 Body per Turn, thats much better then Regeneration in its Current Form, not only that you start getting it on your next Phase, you don't have to wait till Phase 12. Throw in Expanded Effect for END and Stun and you probably don't even need to buy additional REC.

Re: Mental Entangle "If a character is Entangled, can he ignore the Entangle and attack an enemy with, say, an Energy Blast, as long as doing so doesn’t require him to move, or does he have to escape the Entangle first? Generally, no, he may not — he’s got to escape the Entangle before attacking other characters. However, the GM may grant exceptions to this based on common sense, dramatic sense, special effects, game balance, or the like; if he does so, the character is at 1/2 OCV. For example, obviously a character who’s Entangled with handcuffs can do lots of things, including making many attacks, that characters trapped in most Entangles cannot." This is from the FAQ, I don't think I agree with it as a general rule, seems to me it should depend on the SFX. In my game for example we have a mentalist with a Mental Entangle and the GM is pretty ruthless with it, you basically can't do anything at all except try to break out, no movement, no attacks, no mental powers, only powers that are constant or persistent pretty much which are probably already on .

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense? Use the Healing Effect advantage for Absorption from Ultimate Energy Projector, it basically gives the same effect as the White Knight Defense (unlimited max), but only goes to starting values. I have a brick with this and he basically can't be killed but his offense is limited so that he's semi-balanced. Also there is nothing to stop you from buying this for Mental Attacks too, but if I were GMing I'd require that only 2 of 3 defenses were chosen so that you had at least 1 weakness. Also even with this or the White Knight defense you can still be KO'ed by NND's or AVLD's but with the 75% DR it will take awhile. And as was pointed out before you don't need to kill the unkillable brick, you just need to make him useless (ie Entangle, Mental Illusions, etc.)

Re: Broad Spectrum Absorption You can define all characteristics in this way as a special fx esstentially, so any 1 characteristic would be ok. For truely any power or characteristic you'd have to take Variable Effect at + 1/2 (ie 2 powers at once) and then Variable Effect - Multiple Special Effects at the +2 level (All SFX), this would be much more powerful thou as it would be 2 powers in EVERY SFX. Thou to be honest you might be able to get by with fewer SFX's as your character may not have that many. If for example you only need to cover 4 SFX you could take Variable Effect - Multiple SFX at the +1 level. Or Alternatively take Variable Effect at the +1/4 level and Variable SFX at the +1/2 level, I think its fair to say that being able to change the SFX of the Absorption to anything would allow you to change what SFX of powers it can Absorb to (without changing the number of powers that are affected ie in this case total 1). Opps just noticed this is the same as what Hyper-man posted just with Variable SFX at the +1/2 level. Lastly you could make an Absorption only VPP, thats worth -1 1/2 (a character in one of the books has this) as a Limitation on the Control Cost, so it wouldn't be that expensive and would allow you even more flexibility. To answer your question Doc they would fade at the normal rate this is the same for Aid, Transfer, Drain (ie any power that has a specified fade rate), but not Suppress or Succor.

Re: A multistage VPP Basically what you want is a partially limited VPP. This is not technically legal, but there is an example of one in one of the books but I don't remember which. The character has a 60 Point VPP and then another 30 Point VPP that adds onto the 60 Points one to be able to make 90 Point powers but only when the additional limitations are met. In the example character from the book, I think the limitation was something like requires hours to prepare. Found him, pg. 22 of Arcane Adversaries, The Demonologist on pg. 24 under the Powers/Tactics Section is further described how the Pools work together.

Hopefully you can answer this question for me. It's my interpretation of Lazer's RKA on pg. 282 of 5ER that this power is not constructed with a Naked Advantage, not even as a Compound Power with the second part being a Naked Advantage but rather a Power with a Limitation on only its Advantage. 3d6 RKA (Armor Piercing +1/2, Limitation Only Against Force Fields -1) Cost 56 CP I realize it could be viewed as such but I don't think thats the right interpretation of this power under the rules given on pg. 282. I was trying to explain how this power is different from a Compound Power with the second part being a Naked Advantage to Simon, but I feel I failed to explain it properly. I realize for this example the 2 interpretations are functionally equivalent, but for a Power that does not cost END, they would be different since the Naked Advantage would cost END. Anyway if I am right and that a Limitation only on the Advantage of Power is unquiely different from a Naked Advantage or Compound Power with Naked Advantage as the second part could you please explain it to Simon in the following thread. https://www.herogames.com/forums/project.php?issueid=288#note1334 Thanks

Re: What's the duration of Strength? One question about HtH Continuous +1, Damage Shield +1/2, if you use STR to add to the Damage Shield is that STR "tied up"? Meaning since the Damage Shield is not Offensive can you still you those points of STR to attack, leap, etc?

Ok, so STR is a characteristic so it should be Persistent, but it costs END to use which seems to go against the fact that Persistent Powers need to be 0 END. So if its not Persistent is it Instant or Constant? I'm assuming its Instant because a Constant Attack Power doesn't need to keep rolling to hit the target after the first hit. The reason I ask is the following: I wanted to build a HtH Damage Shield for a Brick character. Now I figured since the Brick already has a bunch of STR, there shouldn't be any need to buy more HTH attack with the Damage Shield and Continuous Advantage, I could build it by making a Naked Advantage of Damage Shield for Strength. So the Naked Advantage would be like the following: Damage Shield Offensive +3/4, Continuous +1 for upto 60 Points of Strength 105 CP Ok, the Offensive is there so that he can still use his STR for normal attacks, but 2 things its really expensive (maybe it should be I know Damage Shields usually aren't cheap) and the other is the duration. Naked Advantages are Instant by default thus the power as written is useless. It needs to have Continuous as an Advantage applied to the Naked Advantage (yes I know this seems confusing). But in essence you are double paying for Continuous, you have to buy it for Strength and then again for the Naked Advantage, this makes the power cost a whopping 210 CP. If STR was considered Constant then this would be cheaper but it would still be expensive, and the issue that a Naked Advantage doesn't share the duration of the power that its based on still comes up. I realize one can buy this power with HtH attack for much cheaper (and better since I think you could add your base STR into that) but it doesn't seem to make sense to me that its cheaper to buy a whole new power to do something rather then adding an advantage onto something you can already do.

Re: New Power: Invulnerability Its in the rules under Absorption in the Main Book (pg. 133), but you can also buy dice instead if you like but this get very expensive. You can read up on the page reference I gave as to how Autofire works with Absorption, but I'll also try to explain here. First Autofire Absorption does NOT allow you to absorb multiple times from the same attack, it just basically increases the BODY that can be absorbed from a single attack (Autofire X means roll the dice X times take the highest result and then add X-1 (just like calculating Autofire Knockback)). So keep in mind even if you have Autofire x1,000 Absorption if you get hit by a 1 BODY attack you can only absorb 1 BODY. In this example it is being used to cover very large attacks in a cost effective way, rather then having to buy lots of dice. If you buy lots of dice of Absorption then you have to spend a very large number of character points to buy the required powers (and again for energy/mental damage). Anyone can buy up super high defenses with 120 points in ED and PD each, but the idea of invulnerablity is to have it cost more then 60 points but less then some ridiculously high number. Thats why I feel this cost is justified, its more then 60 (the price of the 75% DR alone) but not that much higher (the price of the Absorption you can get away with in a normal 60 AP cap campaign is probably around 8 points per damage type). Here's a comparison between dice and Autofire: Absorption 6d6 (18 Points Standard Effect) (Persistant +1/2, 2 Charactersitics at once (Body and Stun) +1/2, Healing Effect +0) 60 CP Standard Effect is take to eliminate the randoms of dice rolls, this will protect against upto 18 Body of an attack Absorption 1 pip (Persistant +1/2, 2 Charactersitics at once (Body and Stun) +1/2, Healing Effect +0, Autofire 20 Shots +2) 8 CP This will protect against upto 20 Body of an attack As you can see the Autofire way is alot cheaper. So it just depends on what you want "Invunerablity" to cost in your game, keeping in mind you can still take Stun damage its just hard to do (as described in my first post). I don't think the OP had in mind Invulnerability that cost 120 Points per type of damage (if Autofire is not allowed). Also keep in mind that even in a 60 AP cap game its quite possible to do more then 18 Body on an attack (due to luck, teamwork etc). And higher "levels of Invulnerabilty" (by this I mean Max Body of attack that can be Absorbed) with dice get even more expensive very quickly if forced to buy dice, with Autofire its quite cheap even, whatsmore it can even be bought in a 60 AP cap game. Another reason I'd allow this is because Absorption as a power by itself doesn't really work too well, defenses in the form of either DR or ED/PD are required to survive long enough to be able to use it, so buying this power separately (without and DR for example) wouldn't really be that useful. Further not all attacks are Absorbable, NND's and AVLD's for example, these attacks will deal damage however DR will still reduce this damage. NOTE: I'd like to point out this ONLY works is because the Healing Effect advantage has no maximum effect to it, Autofire does NOT overcome the rules for maximum effect. So if you try to use it with a normal Absorption power you still limited by what you can roll as to your maximum effect. One combination I would certainly NOT allow would be Healing Effect, Autofire and Absorption as a Defense as this would allow you get have insanely high ED/PD by buying massive amounts of Autofire since you are not limited by Maximum Effect. Alternately you could allow Autofire but Cap it at the Max that could be rolled on the Dice, this is approach that I use for example: Absorption 4d6 (+0 Healing Effect, +1/2 Autofire 5, +1/2 Persistent, +1/2 Body and Stun) 50 AP This would let you roll 4d6, 5 times and take the highest and then add 4. But Max it at 24 (Max of 4d6), in this example you should expect at least 20 Body of an attack to be covered. You can drop the need for Standard Effect because the roll 5 times and take the highest part of Autofire should be enough to cover any potentially bad rolls, thou the possibility remains of extremely bad luck in rolling for Body but its really low.

Re: New Power: Invulnerability One can sorta buy this power already, albeit more expensive (which it should be IMO) with 3 things: 1) Damage Reduction 75% Resistant 2) Absorption (to Body and Stun, +0 Healing Effect Advantage", Arbitrary Amount of Autofire, Persistent) Note: "Healing Effect" Advantage is described in UEP, it allows healing to starting values only, but can have unlimited effect (ie. no Maximum) 3) Arbitrary Amount of Hardend PD/ED Arbitrary is whatever level you like (keep in mind the doubling nature of Hardend and Autofire so this is not as expensive as it looks). Now When this character takes Damage you first subtract your Ed or PD (this is nominal as these are intentionally kept low or at starting values) then divide the damage by 4. However the character heals back 1 CP of Body and 1 CP of Stun for certain dice rolled against him. Examine this on a per die basis and you'll see what I mean. For Normal Attacks this becomes: Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 1 Stun Roll of 2 = 1 Body AND 2 Stun Roll of 3 = 1 Body AND 3 Stun Roll of 4 = 1 Body AND 4 Stun Roll of 5 = 1 Body AND 5 Stun Roll of 6 = 2 Body AND 6 Stun After DR this becomes: Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 0.25 Stun Roll of 2 = 0.25 Body AND 0.5 Stun Roll of 3 = 0.25 Body AND 0.75 Stun Roll of 4 = 0.25 Body AND 1 Stun Roll of 5 = 0.25 Body AND 1.25 Stun Roll of 6 = 0.5 Body AND 1.5 Stun And Absorption Heals back: (recall Autofire is arbitrarily high so we can assume the Absorption Roll at least covers any attack) Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun Roll of 2 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun Roll of 3 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun Roll of 4 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun Roll of 5 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun Roll of 6 = 1 Body AND 2 Stun Note: I have converted CP to Characteristic Values for Body and Stun (ie 2 CP from Absorption = 1 Body) Net Damage: Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 0.25 Stun Roll of 2 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun Roll of 3 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun Roll of 4 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun Roll of 5 = 0 Body AND 0.25 Stun Roll of 6 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun So only on rolls of 1 or 5 does any net damage not get healed, of course on average no damage stays, but due to extreme luck of the dice its possible to inflict damage however that damage is really small, ie. even if you rolled all 1's or 5's (or combination thereof) on a 12d6 attack only 2 stun is not healed automatically (Assuming a base ED/PD of 2). And even then on subsequent attacks that 2 could be healed unless of course only 1's and 5's were rolled. So the character needs only enough Body so that he is not outright killed from an attack and with 75% DR you won't need that much. Regeneration Resurrection is also possible to cover this but would most likely be more expensive. Hardend is needed on ED/PD since DR does not affect Penetrating attacks, but since you dont need anymore then your base ED, PD for this build its not expensive to rack up Hardend to whatever level you require. For Killing Attacks it possible to hurt the character if the Body damage is low (ie not much to Absorb from) and Stun damage is high. Ie either rolling x5 for the stun multiplier or buying alot of Increased Stun multiplier. But even then the DR still counts so for example: A 1d6 Killing attack (+12 Stun Multiplier) Could do a Max of: 6 Body, 102 Stun After DR: 1 Body, 25 Stun After Absorption: 0 Body, 19 Stun Thus with Killing Attacks its possible to KO the character, but he really is unKillable Body damage is always healed. I prefer this method of Invulnerablilty, its within the rules, its expensive (thou not insanely priced) and its not really Invulnerability, its only Invulnerablity to Body damage, Stun can still get thru but its hard to do. Note I have caluclated the above damage based on 0 ED/PD with a normal character's base 2 ED/PD the damage numbers would be slightly less.

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout Well I certainly agree with you 3 about changing slot limitations, but my point was to illustrate the similarity between Lockout and ultra slots so as to better price the Lockout limitation. So by the above one MIGHT allow Lockout at -1/4 on a reserve, but probably not. So lets examine it on slots only. On a flexible slot a Lockout limitation is actually worse then making it into a fixed slot, which is half the cost (effectively a -1 limitation). Why is it worse? Because while you may not have to assign all the MP points to the slot you still can't use any points assigned to something else anyway due to the Lockout limitation. At least if it was a fixed slot instead if you had points to spare in the reserve you might be able to use another power at the same time. So by this reasoning for Flexible slots Lockout should be worth at least -1 (for the slot only). Now for fixed slots its a little more interesting, first a fixed slot that is the full size of the MP, a Lockout limitation is worth nothing, since you don't have any points to spend anywhere else anyway. For a fixed slot that isn't equal to the full reserve points, then it depends. If there are no other powers in the MP that one had enough points left to assign to, then in that case again Lockout is worth nothing. If there are powers available then this is where the Lockout limitation could have varying cost depending on how badly it affects the MP. Heres an Example: 60 MP 12rc Power 1 (60 AP Flexible) 2rc Power 2 (20 AP Fixed) (-? Lockout) In this case by adding Lockout you lose the ability to use 40 of your 60 points thats a pretty extreme penalty so is probably worth at least -1. If however you had the following: 60 MP 12rc Power 1 (60 AP Flexible) 5rc Power 2 (50 AP Fixed) (-? Lockout) You only lose 10 points out of 60 that not really even worth a -1/4, more like a -0. I forgot to take Type and duration into account either. Type being Attack/Non-Attack and duration being Instant/Constant or Persistent (these being effecively the same for this purpose). Because clearly a Instant power with Lockout isn't as limiting as a Constant/Persistant power. Also an Attack power with Lockout would mean no further Zero Phase actions so one could not shift Points back to another power until the next Phase thus effectively extending Lockout for 1 Extra Phase. These factors also need to be considered before pricing Lockout as a Limitation. So to me it seems Lockout should generally be worth -1 to -0 depending on the situation a flat -1/2 doesn't seem approriate at all.

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout This thread got me thinking about lockout in general and the first thing that comes to mind is that lockout as a limitation is alot like having only ultra slots. Now given that it seems to me that the lockout limitation should only be taken on slots not the reserve, even if all slots have the limitation. Otherwise you get the following: 13rc 20 AP Multipower (-1/2 Lockout) 3m Power 1 (20AP) (-1/2 Lockout) 3m Power 2 (20AP) (-1/2 Lockout) So for 19 total points you get 2 20 point powers one at a time, which is of course ridiculous. Even if we value Lockout at -1/4 we could have the following: 16rc 20 AP Multipower (-1/4 Lockout) 3m Power 1 (-1/4 Lockout) 3m Power 2 (-1/4 Lockout) For 22 Points which is the same as a 20 Point MP with 2 20 Point ultra slots which would have cost 24. I realize the point difference is minor but it still doesn't seem quite right.

How does the Explosion Advantage work with the Absorption power? Does it go as per pg. 110-111 (ie gives the positive adjustment to all in a explosive radius with lower effect as you move away from the center) or does it work as per the AoE rules on pg. 133 for Absorption (ie the character can absorb from everything in an explosive radius but the positive adjustment is only to himself)? I'd tend to think the latter. Thanks

Re: Favorite 60-point Power Construction As a combination of above ideas: Knock You Into Tomorrow: Dispel Knockback Resistance 10d6 (Does Knockback +1/4, Double Knockback +3/4, 12 Boostable Recoverable Charges +0) 60AP Burn 5 charges for 16.5d6, giving an average of 26" of Knockback with upto 28" of Knockback Resistance Dispelled.

Re: superuseless superpowers Super Euthanasia: Naked Advantage Personal Immunity to Body, use it to drop dead!