bigbywolfe

When you're a child, your parents are clueless and unreasonable. When you're a parent, your children are ignorant and undisciplined. And so the world turns.
 
My favorite quotation on that subject is from Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years."

Read the original post.  The power is described as "player defines who is and is not affected from use to use".  That is not a limitation.  You and I are largely on the same page, except that you assume the player will be OK with the GM telling him "no, you can't define it that way" mid-game.  I am looking for the player to define how this will be limiting in play - HE gets to define the power, and we will set the limitations/mechanical build to meet his vision.
 
Not "he writes down the mechanics and the GM dictates how the power works".  That's how we end up fighting over what the ability can and cannot do in game.Define what it can do, and build the power that does just that.

A power that acts as another Power, is that other Power.
 
The spell proposed only wants to do one thing. Display information, albeit to a specified target or targets.
 
This is Images. It does not do damage, it affects more than one target, has nothing to do with willpower.
 
Images can select for Senses or Sense Groups. Trigger has the only mechanic that links a Detect specifically to it for X variable.  I do not see the argument for MI.
 

"Only perceivable by people I want to perceive it" is not a Limitation. I think it's probably worth a +1/4 Advantage.

I beg to differ. The best Fantastic Four movie is The Incredibles.

As discussed on 6E1 263-64, knowledge of the target’s location depends on the strength of the Mind Scan lock-on:  at Greater Than EGO, the attacker simply knows the direction to the target, all the way up to EGO + 20, in which case the attacker knows the target’s exact location. (The GM may also provide further information, such as “He’s not on ground level,” depending upon the strength of the lock-on, as discussed on 6E1 263.)
 
Me fully getting into the complex subject of “tracking” a mind via Mind Scan will have to wait for APG3, so consider these general guidelines to tide everyone over until then:
 
1. To “track” a mind that a character has a Mind Scan lock-on to, he must have a lock-on that’s at least EGO +10 strong. A weaker lock-on than that breaks as soon as the target begins to move substantially. Determining what “substantially” means is up to the GM, but I generally consider it to be a significant form/amount of movement. Walking between floors in a building doesn’t count; nor does walking around in a small, defined area (such as a corner park or a restaurant). On the other hand, getting into a car and driving away, the target activating his Flight and zooming off, or teleporting halfway across the city probably are “substantial” enough to break the lock-on. The attacker does not know which direction the target started to travel when the lock-on broke. (Alternately, depending on the situation the GM might let him learn that one bit of information if he succeeds with an EGO Roll at the same penalty to the character’s OMCV from the table on 6E1 261.)
 
2. If a character has a Mind Scan lock-on of EGO +10 or greater, he is able to track the target as he moves, with a few caveats.
 
First, if the target moves into an area with fewer (or the same number of) people than the area where the attacker established the Mind Scan lock-on, the attacker can automatically “track” the target without having to make any rolls. (This assumes, however, that the target’s moving at a fairly slow rate of speed, such as walking, or driving in a car at normal urban speeds. If the target’s moving with “significant” speed, see the third point, below, for further guidelines.)
 
Second, if the target moves into an area with more people than the area he was in when the attacker established the lock-on, the attacker must make another EGO Combat Roll (at the new, harsher, modifier) to maintain the lock-on (regardless of the target’s velocity). If he succeeds, the lock-on remains intact; if he fails, the lock-on breaks (but the attacker is aware of roughly what direction the target was traveling).
 
Depending on how fast the target’s traveling, the attacker may have to make EGO Attack Rolls on each of his (the attacker’s) Phases to maintain the lock-on. If appropriate, the GM may add up all the people in the areas through which the target traveled since the attacker’s last Phase and use that larger figure to determine the OMCV penalty.
 
Third, if the target travels with “significant” velocity — such as activating FTL Travel, driving at high rates of speed (60 MPH or more), or Teleporting over a metropolitan (or longer) distance — then the GM may rule that the lock-on breaks automatically. At the very least, the attacker should suffer a large penalty to the OMCV roll to maintain the lock-on:  double (or more) the penalty listed in the Mind Scan Modifiers Table on 6E1 261.
 
3. In any case described above where the attacker has to make an EGO Combat Roll to maintain his Mind Scan lock-on, if he succeeds with that roll he does not need to re-roll his Effect Roll — all he’s doing in this case is maintaining the existing Effect Roll. However, he may choose to re-roll the Effect Roll (perhaps because he hopes to establish a stronger lock-on to make it easier to keep tracking the target). If he does so, he must accept and use that second result.
 
I think that covers everything in your question. If not, please PM me or post a follow-up. Thanx!

I still fail to see how this specific reason makes the movie irredeemably bad.  YMMV.

I agree with them on Mars Attacks, Tank Girl, Hackers, Johnny Mnemonic, Stargate, Hudsucker Proxy, Men in Tights, and Heart and Souls.
 
Especially Hudsucker Proxy! It's my favorite Coen Brothers film, which is a very difficult spot to get.
 
 

Sahara (38% Tomatometer, 54% Audience score) - I thought this movie was thoroughly entertaining. It ain't Shakespeare, but I wasn't looking for that. I was looking for an adventure movie, and I though this one was pretty fun to watch. (I can understand why the franchise never took off as a result of this movie, though.)

Ok. Here's one...
Speed Racer  (2008, 40% on RT)
I think folks saw the name Wachowski  attached to it and figured it would be some uber serious Matrix movie but with the IP layered on thin like make up. Instead, it was true to the source material, kid friendly, and fun. A visual treat , not just with bright lights, but scene swaps that harkened to the old japanimation (IIIRC).
 
And with elements of the classic hero's journey. In the end, Speed Racer's innocence is tested, but he makes it through with his integrity intact thanks to support from friends and family and a never say die attitude.
 
Racer X  was played beautifully by Matthew Fox and I swear the guy screamed superhero material in all the right ways.
 
And the state of ninja quality decay is mentioned in movie!
 
I'm going to say this... this movie achieved what it was trying to, it stayed close to the source material, and it looked great doing it. It is a GOOD movie!
 
There, that's probably unpopular with some
 
 

I finally got one to start this off: Equilibrium, 2002, 40% Tomatometer 

If "Bravo, flank left and prepare enfilade. Alpha, advance to cover and engage. Charlie, set up overwatch on that ridge. Move!" qualifies to you as tactics... then Liaden's awesome list is full of equivalent tactics/tactical maneuvers/tools.
 
Just rename LoneWolf's example to the codephrase "Doubletap!" and it would fit right onto the list. Same for Doc's example.
 
The examples you cited... are basic maneuvers/abilities. They are of course brought up because they are a major part of play, and thus are relevant to discussing the "improvement" of play.

It was love at first arrest

 

My personal thought as to using something other than Darkness with a Limitation is that there's no mechanic there to specify the penalty to the PER relative to the Limitation.  For example, should a -4 PER be a -1, or a -1/2 Limitation? 
 
Personally, if it was just the PER roll being modified, I'd suggest Images (kind of like an anti-Light effect) AoE.  But if you're also going to modify OCV / DCV, then yeah, I'd go with CE.

I think our definitions of "utterly undefined" are very different, and I suspect our experiences of actual play differ as well. So I'll just sign out and offer my hope that you get what you're looking for.

Yeah Gnome, I think you should spend a bit more time explaining exactly what it is you want to see here, nobody but you seems to understand it.

Mainly I'm looking for actual examples and not "They used teamwork in some utterly undefined manner, and thus won". 
An actual combat example, or things like what Doc Democracy and LoneWolf posted.  The big list you posted is mostly things that aren't tactics, and I have no clue why basic maneuvers and abilities are brought up in a discussion about improving play. 
 
This, for example.  Why in the world would that qualify for Surprise?  It's less unexpected than the speedster just running up and doing it with no yelling or pointing, and a normal Grab doesn't qualify for Surprise. 
It feels like "Teamwork" is being used as a codeword for "GM gives bonuses".  Or was Aaron Allston running a game for a group of players who had never read the rules for Accessible foci? 

Well, disregarding for the moment that several of the examples I cited are sophisticated combination moves that are specific to characters' strengths, rather than "general," and reduced to brief expressions for ease of recognition and efficiency of execution... the example you gave, of someone yelling, "Hey, Speedster! Ripoff! RIPOFF!!" while "pointing madly at an enemy with a focus" strikes me as extremely amateurish execution. The character is warning the opponent exactly what is about to happen, so he/she has a chance to prepare for it. OTOH if the team leader identifies that the opponent is using an Accessible Focus, points to him once and calls "Ripoff!" which the speedster already knows is his cue to go in for a Grab, the heroes can get the benefit of Surprise. Yelling, "I'm going to use my gas attack now, you guys!" would be the same kind of advance telegraphing.
 
Perhaps you, or your GM if it's not you, runs the villains in your games as too dumb to recognize those signals. But Aaron Allston wrote that he noticed his players weren't using the kind of trademark teamwork moves that supers in the comics do -- no Fastball Specials, no hammer-and-shield combos. So he pitted them against a team of villains of equal number, but built on significantly fewer Character Points than the heroes, but using rehearsed maneuvers and code words. The heroes got their butts kicked, which humiliation prompted them to develop their own codes.
 
If you don't consider such things "tactics," I'm afraid I'm not clear on what kind of examples you're looking for, and I doubt I can offer anything to benefit you.

The thing is, Wonderland (in the book (also Looking Glass Land)) runs on a combination of math-logic and dream-logic.
 
For example, Alice finds herself in a store of some sort talking to the shopkeeper, who is a sheep. No big deal to talk to a sheet, I know. But she sees something on a high shelf that makes her curious and she tries to look closer, but can't focus on the object of her attention. It keeps turning out to be one shelf above the shelf she is looking at. She keeps looking up and up and can never really catch it.  It's never made explicit but apparently this shop stocks the abstract concept of Infinity...
 
Very abruptly, Alice is no longer in a store but in a boat, rowing it, still with the sheep who continues the conversation as if nothing has changed. Or as if it's perfectly normal to be in a store one second and in a boat on a river the next. This is the kind of transition (or lack of transition) that occurs in dreams and nowhere else in normal human experience.
 
Now try to imagine being awake, with your normal waking mind, and processing an essentially dream-like experience. Coming out the other side of that, you will probably, as someone up thread put it, "INSIST on things making sense." Either that or go stark raving mad.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Introducing a palindromedary to a cat in Cheshire
 
 

Perhaps Aron's geas is "Never touch weapons",  which poses a problem for a medieval royal who was expected to at least hold his own in battle. Nobody using weapons in his presence, or carrying anything on their person more deadly than a knife or a dress sword (neither of which can be drawn in his presence) would be awkward at best.
 
And of course the young woman to whom he is engaged (in an arranged marriage) turns out to be a major bad*** when the chips are down  -- not just brave but resourceful and clever. She has to outwit the Sidhe Queen who has him imprisoned in lifelong slumber, and is more than up to the task.

You guys should try reading the comic series fables. It really turns every fairy tale on its head.
The charming prince is an asshole, the big bad wolf is a heroic protector, the seven dwarves are implied rapists, and so on and so on. It even got its telltale visual novel.
And you could try every derivative Alice in wonder land work.
And every disney movie made the last 20 years as well. Lots of deconstructions out there for those who look.