CrosshairCollie

So much of this recent topic of conversation reinforces my decision to be childfree ...

23 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Historically speaking, so far, firing the first shot results in a 100% win rate.

This would be the exception, as literally nobody can win a nuclear war.  Someone launches a nuke, everybody launches every nuke, world ends not with a whimper but lots of mushroom-cloud shaped bangs.

Though, to be fair, my personal viewpoint is that nobody really 'wins' any war ... one side just loses more than the other.

On 8/1/2019 at 1:08 PM, Cygnia said:

That pun's so bad, it qualifies as attempted murder.

I might get back in on it this year ... it's been a bit and I miss the banter.  I'll need a link, though.

I was going to participate, then I remembered ... I've maybe seen five movies since 2000.

On 8/2/2019 at 10:31 AM, Starlord said:

Trump promises cure for AIDS and Pediatric cancer coming soon

Let us not forget, this was the idiot who didn't know the difference between HIV and HPV.

On 7/28/2019 at 4:12 PM, Cygnia said:

This is here to avoid a Three Stooges moment.

On the other hand ... (the one in the back is like 'Dammit, Carl, we're supposed to be majestic and s**t, stop f***ing around.")

So, I just discovered with absolute certainty that stinging insects still give me panic attacks.  One guess how.

I was gonna post about that.  I laughed my fool ass off at that.  It's just so... PERFECT.

11 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Atheists tend to be more knowledgeable than average about religion.

Hopefully this won't be taken too harshly, but ... I honestly think that's because atheists tend to read multiple religious works with a critical eye and spot their inconsistencies and contradictions, while the religious only read one bit of religious literature (their own) and focus only on the parts they agree with.

The main problem I see with Yak is that it's also a slang term for vomiting, which could result in some embarrassing situations for that character.  Then again, Sentai series can be kind of silly, so ...

11 hours ago, Trencher said:

I mean, Picard was not the most heroic and macho character to begin with

I agree on macho (that was Kirk's schtick), but I would personally say he was the most heroic of the 4 Trek captains I'm familiar with (Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway) simply because he always wanted to settle things nonviolently if it was at all possible.   A good hero, IMHO, knows not just how to fight, but when.

Wakko Warner explains how America works to Trump, courtesy of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

No, he's just of the school that believes if you say something often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it's the truth in spite of proof to the contrary. Unfortunately he has a lot of evidence suggesting he's right.

I haven't seen this much gaslighting since the 'cigarette lighter and farts' fad.

I'm starting to wonder if Trump thinks he holds the Reality Stone and anything he says becomes real.  He's claiming he tried to quiet and stop the 'send her back' chants at his rally while he was very clearly seen on stage smugly enjoying them and saying nothing.

22 hours ago, Pariah said:

Thanks, guys. It's really not as bad as all that; I've just been frustrated about a lot of (comparatively) minor things, and I needed to vent. We're all doing okay; life just isn't quite what we expected exactly now.

 

Or, in the words of Joseph F. Walsh, "I can't complain, but sometimes I still do."

I'm reminded of a T-Shirt I saw.

"Dear Life: I am fully aware that you are unfair.  You can stop reminding me any time now."

"This is my #1 argument against intelligent design.  If the human body was intelligently designed, there wouldn't be that spot in your back you can't scratch.  You'd be able to scratch your whole damn back!"

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I see no reason any character who has an all-round high OCV or DCV should have to buy skill levels instead of CV.  This is especially problematic for DCV, as skill levels do not do anything until they are assigned, so the character does not have a high DCV at the start of combat if he is reliant on skill levels.

 

How is "being very skilled at avoiding attacks" any more appropriately simulated with DCV levels than with a high DCV stat?  A character who is "very skilled at combat" and has a 10 OCV and DCV because he has a 30 DEX (pre-6e) is mechanically superior, and far less expensive, than one with a 15 DCV, +5 "OCV only" skill levels and +5 "DCV only" skill levels.  Why should that be? 

 

It's often hard to compare point values, but when "the same benefits plus more" costs less, that's a really easy one to spot as flawed.

Well, Cap and Hawkeye, to use your examples, would both be subject to NCM.  Cap is 'peak human', after all, not superhuman.  His stats would just be higher than Hawkeye's.

You also overlook the fact that, if you don't need those levels for OCV or DCV, you can apply them to damage, making them more flexible than straight OCV/DCV purchase.

In the end, it's about character concept, which should be the main factor in building the character, IMHO.

Though the more I build 6e characters, the more I wonder if the jacked-up stats are because it's hard to spend 400 points otherwise.

Did you ever wonder how many senior citizen tea-party/MAGA/'I hate socialism' people cash their social security checks in a total lack of self-awareness?

So, sifting through all this and analyzing it, the primary problem looks to be the Getting Stunned issue, which admittedly, is a pretty big issue, though it would swing both ways.  If a villain can't justify a high stat, s/he won't get it, including changing 'canon' villains (Bulldozer with a 20 DEX?  Wha?  No.), so the Getting Stunned issue would probably just make combat a lot swingier.

On 7/12/2019 at 9:18 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 Does Captain America have markedly better OCV and DCV to Hawkeye?

Levels, my friend, levels.

I rather enjoy throwing this in people's faces ...

Another option might be to buy some DCV levels that only apply to sight-based targeting (assuming that this images are sight-only, of  course).

10 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Though the news story in the morning paper says Trump thinks he wins no matter how Dems react. If they come to the defense of AOC, Ilhan Omar and the others, he gets to paint the whole party as raving Socialists.

There are times I wonder how many people who dump on socialism can actually define it.  They always point and say Venezuela (it's like the new Benghazi), but they never look at Canada, Sweden, Norway and the like.