A New Use For Hardened

[prestidigitator]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

I actually do not like the rule about not being able to buy partially Hardened defenses. Since you can buy multiple Defense powers (even based upon the same Defense Power, such as Armor) that stack, and only some of which are Hardened, the rule becomes rather difficult to enforce. Also, if you don't allow a 1 rPD defense to be purchased solely for the purpose of having a Hardened defense, the question quickly arises: well, what is the minimum then? It seems awfully arbitrary, and I am not convinced it is an easy one for the GM to make a judement call on.

 

For Armor Piercing it is a totally unnecessary rule. For Penetrating and Indirect, partially Hardened defenses become a problem. I think we could fix this in ways other than simply disallowing partially Hardened defenses, however. We could instead do something like compare the Standard Effect of the attack and the amount of Hardened defense (either total or in the biggest defense available), and apply the attack's Advantage if the attack is bigger. Such a rule would be a heck of a lot easier to arbitrate IMO. (I'm not suggesting exactly that mechanic, but something like it would be nice.)

[DinoMan18]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

man you are a god when it comes to this stuff we deal with girls and stuff you just dont seem to care much for so you have WAY more time then use to study on this stuff besides im getting better and so is q-tip man lol but all in all you are the best at this i will atmit this

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

In my games agents tend to use a lot of guns (RKAs) with one or purrhaps two advantages to decrease the effectiveness of armor. Sure they don't do a lot to most PCs, but a good roll or two can take out the min/maxer who buys just enough r defense to stop the average body/stun on a 3d6KA. Allowing this in my game would make Hardened even more desirable, since it could be applied against the ISM instead of the AP or Pen Adv.

 

Sure most Heroes are immune to the lowly .22, but the normals in the area aren't and that's often the targets of the agents if the Heroes try to stop them, after all do you chase the bad guys and let the civilians die or help the civilians and let the agents escape?

[The Main Man]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

I got to thinking about how +1/4 of Hardened cancels out +1/2 of Armor Piercing and Penetrating, but it entirely cancels out Indirect.

 

What if it required 2 levels of Hardened to cancel the +3/4 Indirect.

 

Building on that idea, power advantages like Semi-Armor Piercing and Increased Stun Multiplier could be real ace-in-the-holes when facing Hardened foes.

[Frenchman]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

I got to thinking about how +1/4 of Hardened cancels out +1/2 of Armor Piercing and Penetrating, but it entirely cancels out Indirect.

 

What if it required 2 levels of Hardened to cancel the +3/4 Indirect.

 

Building on that idea, power advantages like Semi-Armor Piercing and Increased Stun Multiplier could be real ace-in-the-holes when facing Hardened foes.

 

I'd have to say no, just for simplicities sake, but it brings back up another point I'd like to vociferate upon:

 

The idea that defenses should be 1/2 the cost of attacks - based, I presume, on the idea that characters have to buy twice as many defenses (energy and physical) while they only need to buy one attack.

Hardened at +1/4 is, to me, a bit underpriced as it is - it functions a little like a variable power, in that it can be changed to apply to whatever it need to, and it cancels out around 4x the character points spent on it.

Don't believe me?

 

Take a 40 point attack (8d6 EB vs. ed) and the 'equivalent' amount of defense should be 20 points (0/20 FF). I'm not saying that they are equal, that one will cancel out the other, or anything like that, I'm just using these as examples for the sake of my argument. Defenses should cost 1/2 what attacks do, so we have a 40 point attack and a 20 point defense.

 

Now apply AP to the attack and Hardened to the defense. 60 points for 8d6 EB AP, but only 25 points for the 0/20 FF Hardx1.

If we go to double AP and double Hardened, then the difference is 80 points vs 30, and hardened becomes increasingly more cost effective. No-one would seriously consider buying a 20 or 30 point attack with APx4 in any gaming group I've played with, but buying 10 or 15 points of Hardenedx4 has not only been discussed, it has happened.

 

What the heck is going on?

 

The problem is that we are applying 1/2 the advantage to 1/2 the cost, which means that hardened costs only 1/4 the amount of AP or PEN, and as little as 1/6 the amount of Indirect.

 

Do I think this is a problem? Only occasionally, when theres an escalation of AP vs. Hardened - because the cost differences grow exponentially with each stacking of the advantages.

 

[/rant]

[Hyper-Man]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

There seems to be a lot of discussion about Hardened vs. Indirect. You guys do know that about the only defensive powers that Indirect will bypass is Force Wall* and possibly a vehicles defenses? Armor, Force Field and normal PD + ED are all personal defenses and are normally immune to the effects of Indirect by default.

 

*Has anyone ever seen a Hardened Entangle on a character sheet?

 

As already pointed out, Hardened is one of those Advantages that requires some forethought when purchased.

• It only stops one Flanking* Advantage (*my term, to see explanation see this old rules forum post: re: multiple layers of hardened and Multiple AP/Pen Attacks http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19047&highlight=flanking)
  
• If the number of Flanking Advantages outnumber the levels of Hardened then which Flanking Advantage that is stopped first is a "set" effect (I believe my thread above helped to convince Steve Long to change his previous ruling on this).
  
• Applying Armor Piercing to Teleportation allows it to bypass barriers with the Advantage Cannot Be Escaped With Teleportation (which is a similar but seperate Advantage to Hardened).
  
• If we're going to allow Hardened to stop 1 or 2 levels of Increased Stun Multiplier we might as well allow it to also stop AP Teleporation imho.

[Frenchman]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

Armor' date=' Force Field and normal PD + ED are all personal defenses and are normally immune to the effects of Indirect by default.[/quote']

I disagree. A FF defined as a bubble of force around a character would do nothing to protect them from THIS:

 

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=499#comic

 

poor traumatized animals...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

I disagree. A FF defined as a bubble of force around a character would do nothing to protect them from THIS:

 

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=499#comic

 

poor traumatized animals...

 

That's an NND - it bypasses personal defenses.

[ghost-angel]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

I disagree. A FF defined as a bubble of force around a character would do nothing to protect them from THIS:

 

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=499#comic

 

poor traumatized animals...

 

FF is a personal defense. Indirect has no effect on it. As Hugh pointed out the link is a good display of NND; possibly NND;Does Body

[Frenchman]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

Knew the NND response was coming (actually expected AVLD), but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways - it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate, if potentially abusive, use of Indirect at +3/4. Indirect can bypass a force wall, so why not a FF that is defined as an extension of a characters allready existing FW power (Invisible Woman). It can bypass a shield bought as DCV levels - so therefore it makes sense that it can bypass a shield bought as Armor. Really it, as always, boils down to sFX vs sFX. While I agree the comic I referenced would be AVLD or NND (I just got a chuckle out of it) I think it's reasonable for Indirect at the maximum level to bypass a lot of 'personal' defenses, depending on the relative sFX involved. I wouldn't make a character buy an alternate version of their Indirect EB just because FW-Villain has learned how to make a FF-bubble around himself.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

Knew the NND response was coming (actually expected AVLD)' date=' but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways - it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate, if potentially abusive, use of Indirect at +3/4. Indirect can bypass a force wall, so why not a FF that is defined as an extension of a characters allready existing FW power (Invisible Woman). It can bypass a shield bought as DCV levels - so therefore it makes sense that it can bypass a shield bought as Armor. Really it, as always, boils down to sFX vs sFX. While I agree the comic I referenced would be AVLD or NND (I just got a chuckle out of it) I think it's reasonable for Indirect at the maximum level to bypass a lot of 'personal' defenses, depending on the relative sFX involved. I wouldn't make a character buy an alternate version of their Indirect EB just because FW-Villain has learned how to make a FF-bubble around himself.[/quote']

 

I have to disagree.

 

When modeling a shield like that of Captain America it is usually bought through a Accessible Focus with facing and/or skill roll limitations built in regardless of what defensive power is being used (especially personal defenses like Armor).

 

Making a sfx based argument against this about a character without providing the sfx of the Indirect attack is weak. If you don't want to take the time to properly model a sfx with the rules as is don't then complain that the rules as written are flawed when it appears you are essentially house-ruling without taking into consideration the consequences.

[ghost-angel]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

Knew the NND response was coming (actually expected AVLD)' date=' but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways - it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate, if potentially abusive, use of Indirect at +3/4. Indirect can bypass a force wall, so why not a FF that is defined as an extension of a characters allready existing FW power (Invisible Woman). It can bypass a shield bought as DCV levels - so therefore it makes sense that it can bypass a shield bought as Armor. Really it, as always, boils down to sFX vs sFX. While I agree the comic I referenced would be AVLD or NND (I just got a chuckle out of it) I think it's reasonable for Indirect at the maximum level to bypass a lot of 'personal' defenses, depending on the relative sFX involved. I wouldn't make a character buy an alternate version of their Indirect EB just because FW-Villain has learned how to make a FF-bubble around himself.[/quote']

 

While it sounds good on screen, and your thoughts are solid.

 

You have to pick the Powers whose Mechanics model what you are trying to achieve. SFX aside the underlying mechanics are what drives the game - otherwise we would simply move everything to an SFX vs SFX situation and abjucate from there. But we don't, we allow great leeway when SFX interact, but they are not the driving force of How It All Works Together.

 

The Mechanics allow for a common ground of expectations to work from. If you as the GM decides the SFX chosen for a FF Power due to wording or what have you are enough to allow Indirect to suddenly bypass them you have broken expectations. Now the Group, as a whole, must remember a series of SFX vs SFX situations (Liddium Beams worked this way on Metal Armor, but differently on Tough Skin Armor...) and it becomes basically unplayable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

Knew the NND response was coming (actually expected AVLD)' date=' but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways - it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate, if potentially abusive, use of Indirect at +3/4. Indirect can bypass a force wall, so why not a FF that is defined as an extension of a characters allready existing FW power (Invisible Woman).[/quote']

 

An alternative interpretation is that IW does not have the Force Field power, but merely surrounds herself with a tight Force Wall. She is always affected by Indirect because her "Invisible force field" power is, mechanically, a Force Wall. In my view, this is the more accurate interpretation.

 

It can bypass a shield bought as DCV levels - so therefore it makes sense that it can bypass a shield bought as Armor. Really it' date=' as always, boils down to sFX vs sFX.[/quote']

 

Both Shields are foci, which I would consider to no longer be "personal defenses".

 

I think it's reasonable for Indirect at the maximum level to bypass a lot of 'personal' defenses' date=' depending on the relative sFX involved.[/quote']

 

I don't. Why should a character paying +3/4 for Indirect, which has its own benefits, get to tack on an AVLD-like effect (only defenses intrinsic to the character's physical body count)? Even assuming this is considered the lesser level of AVLD, and carries a cost of +3/4 rather than the +1 1/2 to apply against an exotic defense, the character is getting two +3/4 advantages for the price of one.

[The Main Man]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

While I am fully aware of what Indirect effects, I am now intrigued about Hugh Nielson's comment regarding Foci. The same could probably be said about Independant powers as well.

[Balabanto]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

I actually think this is reasonable, if you make the rate one for one. You have to choose between a bunch of things for every level.

 

Now follow through with me, here. It's unlikely that anyone will harden their defenses more than twice.

 

1d6 RKA, Autofire, +4 Stun Multiplier. Sure, it becomes +3.

 

But now let's look at this power. 1d6 RKA, Autofire, Armor Piercing, Penetrating, +2 Stun Multiplier. You have to stop the Penetrating. So that leaves you with AP and +2 Stun Multiplier. You're still screwed.

 

This is a "Doesn't matter." ruling.

[DinoMan18]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

i see your point but who in there right mind would do that thats just an attack for hardened it sucks vrs normal resestanet pd or ed sorry but its just to out there

[ghost-angel]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

i see your point but who in there right mind would do that thats just an attack for hardened it sucks vrs normal resestanet pd or ed sorry but its just to out there

 

Actually its even nastier against nor PD/ED Resistant Defenses, as at least Hardened will mitigate one of the effects.

[The Main Man]

Re: A New Use For Hardened

 

This is a "Doesn't matter." ruling.

That's mostly what I think, too.