bigbywolfe

But Billy Ray Cyrus did inspire a good Weird Al cover, the Achy Breaky song, which talks all about irritating songs and is ideal for this thread really
 
 

As Death Tribble insulted me above, and in the spirit of the friendly English-Aussie rivalry, I counter-nominate Ultavox's Vienna.
 
If anyone beside Death Tribble is asking, I did give it a listen, and Pariah this is a serious nomination.
 

"One vote can't make a difference."
 
"That's not true.  The first robot President was elected by exactly one vote."
 
"Ah, yes.  John Quincy Adding Machine.  He really struck a cord with the voters when he promised not to go on a killing spree."
 
"Yes, but like most politicians he promised more then he could deliver."

" So, uh, no research? Nothing going on? Monsters or whatnot? Good! Good. Uh, so, did anybody...uh...last night, you know, did anybody, um...burst into song?"

I think you mean Fox.
 
All other observations are factual.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of bad movies could be salvaged
 
One of my own guilty pleasures I'd like to see redone would be the 1986 movie "Troll" 
Now there has been talk of this, mostly capitalizing on the fact the hero of the story was named "Harry Potter Jr.!" 
But I don't think for one Minute Rowling took the name from this despite what the makers of the 1986 film claimed.
 
The idea of a troll remaking an entire apartment complex into his fairie kingdom? A young boy the only one at first aware of his sister's possession, and a witch in the apartment on the top floor? Oh the CGI alone would be worth it as a fun flick
 
 
 

I think it would be trivial to make an adaptation of Starship Troopers that had no pro-fascist agenda lurking in the background, particularly since that's not in the book to begin with. And I think the Iron Man movies showed how to put your star actors in powered armor without losing the ability to see their faces and their emotions.

More with King, I admit I'd be curious if they could remake "The Running Man" closer to the original source material as well.  Mind you, I'm also seeing John Cena as Ben Richards and Wayne Brady as Damian Killian so take that with a grain of salt.

I would like to see a remake of Starship Troopers that wasn't a complete middle finger to the original book.
 
As far as The Princess Bride is concerned, I think anyone who suggests a remake should be put into the Zoo of Death.
 
(It's possible that I'm a little opinionated where these movies are concerned.)

Star Wars (1977). The Force Awakens doesn't count. 

Looker, by Michael Crichton.  Its about a company scanning real models and actresses to use in computer simulations, then killing them so they don't have to be paid.  In the ages of deepfakes and CGI, its just begging for an update.

My brother has adopted an increasingly sedentary lifestyle as he's gotten older. Yesterday I was visiting him and his wife at their house.
 
My brother: "You can't take life for granted. I could get run over by a car tomorrow."
 
His wife: "Only if it drove through the living-room window."

It sounds like you're in violent agreement with me, since that is an alternative way of stating what I said.
 
You asked, after no one suggested this was the case, if PCs can't Abort when Cover is in play. I noted that, once a Cover is successful, that is the case... because that means the attack has happened, and the standard rules for Aborting apply (as always).
 
That is all.

One possible way of viewing Cover is that the attacker's use of Cover turns his attack into a "super-abort" - he can make the attack (roll the damage) at any time, in priority to any other Abort by the target, unless he is distracted/surprised.  The question then becomes what kind of actions can surprise the attacker, breaking the cover.

...actually, they kind of do. The player was told that their opponent was making an attack against them. If they don't declare Abort before the attack, then they don't get to do it afterward. You can't abort to a Dodge after you know the opponent hit you in the hopes that your DCV will make the difference.
 
Remember, with Cover, the PC has already been hit. It's just damage hasn't been rolled yet.
 
Also, as a general aside... I've only ever played Champions once. I was introduced, have GMed, and with one session exception only ever played NON-supers games. I view equating HERO with supers as erroneous - it's a legacy that's there, but Champions =/= HERO.
 
Though I still do want to build a PC who can survive a fall at terminal velocity and then use it in a game...

I would say that this predates the Comics Code, and dates back to (at the latest) Batman #1.  That was the first appearance of the Joker.  As written, the Joker did not survive the story.  However, the Editor realized, if we are publishing a story every month in Detective, 6 or 8 a quarter in Batman, plus all the other Batman appearances, we are going to need antagonists, and this one is just too good to kill off after a single appearance.
 
I agree with, and respect, "I don't like the tropes, so I don't like the genre, so I will play something else".  I don't agree with, and cannot respect, "I don't like the tropes, so I will pay the genre but subvert it at the expense of the game everyone else wants to play".

It's not "it always hits" though.  You roll to hit when you first point the attack at them, and then if it hits you get to "save" the damage until such time as you decide to inflict it.  The current verbiage doesn't say anything about whether the target is resisting, and in fact in the example in 6e2 the target is at full DCV.  Which to me doesn't make sense; to have someone Covered, they need to not be moving, resisting, or otherwise at full DCV.  Or at least willing to freeze, which is where the PRE+10 Presence Attack comes in.
 
If someone is at full DCV, and they're ignoring your order to "Freeze!", and you're trying an attack roll against them, you're not properly attempting the Cover maneuver against them.  You're attempting an ordinary attack against them.  

How often do we have discussions about players refusing to follow genre tropes?  How often does it work out that their refusal to follow genre tropes leads directly back to being "punished", in-game, for following genre tropes?  If we want these to be used, they need to be neutral at worst, and ideally rewarded.
 
When we want everyone to display higher moral ground and not kill opponents, or show restraint and not fire off full-power blasts at every unknown target, or actually role play rather than looking for the absolute best tactical choice in every situation, and forget the reality that people are seldom guided by a detailed analysis of every possible alternative, selecting the best one with logic and efficiency their sole guide, what do we get?  "Well, my character is a tactical genius who hates to lose and is utterly remorseless in his fight against evildoers, so it's IN CHARACTER for him to only make the best tactical decisions, to hit the bad guy with everything he's got and to kill him off if he thinks the justice system, or poor prison security, will just put him back on the streets."
 
Why?
 
Because the GM rubs the players' faces in the return of defeated foes because a tricky lawyer got a "not guilty" or Stronghold was nowhere near strong enough to hold them.  Because the Hero fires off a low-power Blast that plinks off the unknown villain's defenses, and that villain then fires a massive counterattack that Stuns the Super.  "HA HA - the press runs humiliating stories of your crushing defeat.  All your PRE attacks are -3d6 for the next month due to this negative press."  Because EVERY KO'd villain gets a recovery, gets back up and blasts the heroes in the back, so "screw honour and hit him one more time when he's down, just to be sure".
 
If Cover means that the opponent probably just break cover anyway, why would the player be motivated to take a penalty to OCV and a delay to damage?  ANSWER:  They would not.  They would be motivated, instead, to rationalize why they strike first, and hard, so that they defeat that opponent,  not have him break cover, so they just wasted their action anyway.
 
A desire not to shoot them?  Sure.  But all Covered means is, if they don't cooperate, I either shoot them anyway or I back off.  Maybe I should have Grabbed "Bad Grandma" and restrained her instead of pulling my UberGun, or engaged the mooks using my attacks at less than full DC, or taken that OCV penalty to Pull my Punch instead of Cover.
 
 
If the goal is to show how Super the Super is, yes.  If the goal is to have that Normal still capable of a dramatic threat, no.
 
Looking at the source material, how often has MightyMan heard "Back off, buddy, or I'll shoot Nellie, here, in the head" [Nellie is Covered by Gunman] and thought "Hey, I'm virtually certain to win the DEX roll-off anyway, and even if I don't, a handgun can't do enough BOD to kill Nellie in one shot anyway, so my teammate with Healing powers can save her."?
 
I see a lot more thought bubbles like "For all my power, he's rendered me helpless - I cannot allow harm to come to an innocent girl like Nellie!"
 
We accept that, in the time it takes MightyMan to ignite his heat vision, his opponent can activate his force field, go Desolid and Dodge, Dive for Cover or Missile Deflect (all by Aborting - ha ha, that always goes first).  But we can't accept that Cover means the attacker has a "priority abort" to roll his damage?
 
Now, I would classify the hero doing something with no visible cues, that the attacker could in no way expect, as being a potential "distraction" that provides the potential for breaking cover.  Maybe that should require a Stealth roll, or an Acting roll, against the attacker's PER roll (with bonuses if the power he wants to use has Invisible Power Effects).  The attacker already took a penalty to OCV, hit anyway and delayed his damage.  It seems reasonable that this should not mean "no problem - the target can easily avoid the attack".

The value proposition of Cover is to take a hostage or get someone to yield instead of having to kill them.
 
I agree the rules around it could use some tweaking, but it's a dramatic tool.
 
The classic, "Drop your weapon or I splatter Susan's brains all over the vault door!  You, bank manager, start opening that thing now!"
 
In super heroic situations this allows a grossly inferior opponent (for them) to be a real threat.  Sure, Robert the Robber, is no match for InvincoLad, but the potential death of an innocent might be.

So, if the target who is covered can break cover, why should the opponent ever use this maneuver, rather than just hitting the opponent now?  What do you perceive as the "value proposition", mechanically, for the attacker in using the Cover maneuver instead of just striking immediately (while the target is solid and his force field is down)? 
 
I'd guess that guy with his defenses down was also surprised out of combat, so the attacker has, by revealing his presence yelling "FREEZE!", already given up the double stun that comes from surprising his target out of combat.

I don't think anyone in our group has ever used the cover maneuver even once.  I do like it though, at least thematically.  My own house-rule, if anyone ever bothered to use it, would be that covering someone would negate their Combat Luck.  When the bad guy holds James Bond at gunpoint, Bond doesn't just run around shooting like he did before.  Suddenly he's in actual danger.

I have no idea where to put this, and "other genres" seems appropriate.
 
No; I'm not looking to tear it apart or ask questions about it.  I just wanted to say that I spent this afternoon reading it.  Yeah; I'm probably the last guy to buy it (that's just the way it tends to go for me    ), but I read it today-- the PDF, anyway.  I intend to read it again when the printed book shows up.
 
First: it took me far to long to make the connection between the Bill Keyes listed on the cover and our own Bill Keyes.   That was humorously embarrassing.  
 
Second:  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  It was well-written, with an easy, comfortable writing style that read quickly and lightly.  I want more!      I have to say that overall, it's not my thing-- well, Steampunk is something I've enjoyed for quite some time, but the over-all tone built into the offered setting is a bit 'dark' for my tastes, or rather, to be more accurate-- a bit dark for what I like in Steampunk.  I suppose I'm a Verne at heart.
 
Still, I can't say enough good things about this book, over all.  Even though it tends to be a bit dark by default, it's not overtly depressing or dehumanizing, and is filled, particularly near the end, where the suggestions start coming hard and fast-- with suggestions on lightening things up.  I wasn't too keen on the baked-in presence of magic, but again-- lots of suggestions on ignoring that, and they worked well.  Oddly, I didn't mind magic as it relates to the talents of Savants.  It seemed almost appropriate there.
 
One thing I would liked to have seen was a bit more information on the "ancient evil beasties."  No; I don't need write-ups for a piece of background, particularly one that is expressly described as not taking direct action in the setting, ever.  But I would like to know just _why_ they are interested in humans and technology-- at least, more than the vague mentions that they are in fact interested-- and why this interest waxes and wanes across generations.  To a lesser extent, I would like to know the effects on humans of this waxing and waning.  I suppose to sum it up: is this something unique to the setting?  Is it important to the history or the future adventures of the game?  Or was this an afterthought to bring this wordbook in line with the much-unloved universal timeline dropped on us in 5e and not yet abandoned?
 
Still, that's rather minor, as if I chose to run with this book, I could always invent what I needed and ignore what I didn't.  And I confess that it _is_ helpful that the provided introductory adventure leaps directly to the machinations of these great evil beings and their attempt to use Savants to open a dimensional gateway.  But that also seems pretty close to direct intervention.  Still, it does provide an idea of the motives the evil and how they influence the world.  I'd just like something a bit more concrete.
 
 
However, if you haven't checked it out, I can't recommend it enough, if only for pleasure reading.  It's just really well-done, and should be considered a high-water mark for third-party products.  
 
(What I really wish, though, was that the HERO version got the same cover as the Savage Worlds version.     )