unclevlad

Why does it violate RAW, or even the spirit? By RAW it'd be AoE 1 hex (Accurate) for +1/2, Megascale for presumably +1. Guided munition of some sort, perhaps. I can see where the combination is hard to visualize/justify, sure, but I don't see why it violates even the spirit. Is it balanced and reasonable? That's the GM's call.

It doesn't take a majority, unless you meant that a majority of stupid people are dangerously stupid. Probably couldn't argue that. A problem here is that stupidity spreads like fire, and modern society lets factions toss gasoline around. So a small minority can turn into a raging majority in an eyeblink.

I draw a distinction between wearing the helmet and smoking for a few reasons. One, you can't isolate the risk increase from smoking; there are other factors. Two, on this argument, should someone who eats poorly, doesn't exercise, etc. be denied coverage when the diabetes diagnosis is made? That's a very tricky slope. But not wearing a helmet while off-roading, or at any time on a motorcycle, or not wearing a seat belt in the car, have clear cause and effect. Sure, I'd pay for the other injuries (one guy I used to work with, had one of his hands utterly mangled and largely useless from an off-road motorcycling accident) but as you say, damage to the head is excluded if wearing the helmet would have mitigated or prevented it. Another example would be driving drunk. Now, ok, the point about the slippery slope with regard to lifestyle-related conditions might apply to vaccinations here. And what do you do when the objection is based on religious belief rather than a "no one can tell ME what to do" attitude? Another point is that some exclusions for these types of situations have been in policies...but in legalese. And they've potentially been abused by the insurance companies to avoid paying out clains. So a lot of this would be perfectly fine in an Ayn Rand universe.....

Not necessarily; other materials might be involved. But I think I'll just leave that there....

Last year, Rolex released an updated Oyster Perpetual (OP) 36. 2 basic dial colors, 5 new, bright colors, that hadn't been seen from Rolex in ages. MSRP is not cheap...$5600 IIRC...but asking price for the more popular bright colors...still around $12K or so, even after 9 months. Pretty much the same story for the new Rolex Explorer model released in, IIRC, April. The Patek Nautilus 5711 in steel, a classic watch...ok, list is around $20K, but these are going for closer to $70K. Ming Thein is a highly respected watch photographer. He decided to start a watch company oh...4, 5 years ago I think. It is WIDELY acclaimed, with 2 major prizes to its credit. It's extremely small and they strive to maintain their standards...so almost all the releases have been small batches. They go on sale online, and sell out in literally 5 minutes. Yes, speculator purchasing was rampant, because asking prices for several models is 3-4x the original purchase price. In ultra-high-end Bourbons, the elite names commonly fetch > $1000...and sometimes WELL over. Cognac has that too, but usually for cognacs featuring very, very old components. When products with relatively scarce availability suddenly become Hot Items, yes...the price explodes. Skyboxes have actually always been more for corporate types. They aren't the issue; the issue is personal seat licenses. Here's a link to a license brokering site: https://www.pslsource.com/buy_dallas_cowboys_psl Scroll down the offers; hover and you will see where the seats are. Then look at the prices. Note that this is NOT the cost of a season ticket; it's the cost to have the right to BUY the season ticket. Several years ago, there was an article about the major shift in the crowd enthusiasm at Cowboys home games. The problem...the basic fan got squeezed out. The diehards got replaced by the money guy...or the guy who viewed it as an investment and sold several individual-game tickets for spot prices. The common opinion was that the feel of the crowd was just not the same at all. And heck, one can argue that season tickets, even for the NFL and its short season, are something of a luxury. But single game? Average ticket price, league-wide is a bit over $100 per. For MLB, it's about $30 per. Plus parking, if you drive, and concessions at the captive-audience hijacking prices. Are these connected? Actually, yes. Those ticket prices go to paying players' skyrocketing salaries...the insane contracts for the top few, pull up the salaries for the 2nd and 3rd tier players too...and into the owners' pockets. The mega TV contracts...guess what? If you have cable or satellite, you're paying for them. The broadcasters pay the leagues insane amounts...then turn around and charge the cable and satellite companies an insane amount. And that's passed on to the customers. The inequality of wealth distribution is consistently growing more and more extreme. And as it concentrates into the hands of relatively few, markets skew to accommodate their desires. Which, yes, tends to leave the everyday person behind. Bingo. It is moving that way.

It could never be shown during the day. After midnight only.

What I wish our system allowed...if you refuse the vaccine, then develop Covid...your insurance is voided. You pay for everything. But that'll never happen.

Oh, I wasn't being deeply philosophical, or saying the top 10% was any better. Quite the opposite; it was intended as very cynical. They just don't care about the health care costs, because they more often have high-end insurance...and that also tends to give them high-end access. The American system isn't that bad...so long as you have the money to pay for it. But recognize just how large a qualifier that is. And what it says about American priorities.

Well, it depends on how much money you have. Our system works fine for the top 10%.

Mind...there are some nasty criticisms I've heard about both the Canadian and British health care systems. It isn't all sweetness and light to have a national health care system. But ours is a hot mess, to be sure. Life expectancy? We're 46th. https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/ The gap isn't narrowing, it's growing: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#item-le_total-life-expectancy-at-birth-in-years-1980-2017_dec-2019-update

I'd be inclined to think it was the compressed schedule more than the short gap. It was that short only for the Lakers and Heat. Teams that made the playoffs, but lost in, let's say even the 2nd round...they played, what, about 20 games total between the play-in period and their playoff games. at most. The Olympic team camp is scheduled to open July 6th...with the NBA Finals not even starting until July 8th. They end the 22nd, if it goes 7...and opening day in Tokyo is the 23rd. OK, so, anyone in the Finals will have to pass on the Olympics. Story on NBC.com says LeBron and AD have already declined due to injury issues. If there's something to the compressed schedule causing some of these problems, that'll likely mean more don't. And last...from the NBC story about the Olympic team: THAT may turn many NBA players off, just from not wanting to deal with all that for another 6-8 weeks.

Mmm...ok, fair enough. Selective isn't necessarily a direct replacement for Selectable. So probably AoE remains a potential issue in terms of being an advantage that should readily be left unused. And yes, I think making Accurate a separate advantage has a lot going for it. The language becomes simpler.

Oh man you fixed the typo…I liked it! I can easily believe the weight. I somehow got the A/V duty in one class in 9th grade…those were heavy reels, and only 16mm.

Cue the intro from Hell's Bells.... and... Break out The Brooms.... Break out The Brooms.... The biggest problem facing the Nuggets in the off-season is going to be self-assessment. There are some contributing players like Barton that can be free agents, but they aren't too bad there. But Jamal Murray's injury meant that their playoff run wasn't likely to be long at all. Porter Jr was reportedly hampered with back injuries...but that was also what cost him his one year in college. And he needed surgery. So there's an alarming pattern there, given that he doesn't turn 23 til the end of this month. At least the Nuggets didn't roll over this time as they did in game 2. Down 15 at the end of the 3rd, they made a game of it..

Yep, but it can be a matter of presentation. I like general rules...like "you can turn off an advantage but not a limitation"...so Stun Only, if you want it to stick, needs to be a Limitation. That said, there's unacknowledged classes of advantages that should be made more explicit: --advantages that don't impact END (Reduced END, Costs END only to activate as an advantage are, I believe, the only 2 but I could be wrong) --advantages on attack powers that don't impact the DCs of an attack. Reduced END is one; IIRC, Indirect is another. OK, with AP or Double KB or AVAD, yes, it's obvious that these influence the attack effectiveness. Reduced END doesn't...it influences repeatability. Some other things like Variable Special Effects can be less obvious. If it's changing something material...VSE can let you switch between PD and ED, for example...then that clearly justifies a DC adjustment. But if it's just SFX (from heat to cold but still ED)...I generally wouldn't say it should change the DCs. That said, in the interest of simplicity, I'm OK with saying VSE impacts DCs. (Yes, OK, I like HAs so I can tack on martial arts DCs (rather than applying naked advantages to STR), and I like the Ranged Martial Arts, both for Ranged DCs and for the seriously nice maneuver bonuses. For example, using the notion of fleshcrafting from Vampire's Tzimisce clan...character gets stuff like Shape Shift, Healing, HA vs. Power Def, HA vs Power Def and Does Body, and I tossed in HA with Penetrating too. They're in an MP except for the Shape Shift. Some martial maneuvers, a few martial DCs, and STR to round out the overall damage profile.) OK, now, if there were NO advantages that didn't impact DCs, then the lack of a statement wouldn't be that bad...but still, and again maybe this is more about presentation than anything else, but making these clearer and more readily available would be a Good Thing.

I'd certainly heard that the mega studios were squeezing the theaters; hadn't heard the degree of it. Looking at the current, nice theater in town...none of the movies looks to be big-budget. In The Heights is probably the highest-profile, but I don't think it was that expensive, relatively speaking. The only Disney movie is Cruella, which doesn't tie into their major properties. We'll have to wait and see how things play out when the mega-movies start coming down the track. BTW: if you follow that link, there's an interesting comment at the end. From a person who used to be a projectionist Back In The Day, when movies were still on film. And the comment above it asserted the cost for those prints ran around $3000...which I can believe.

The news on Christian Eriksen: it was a full cardiac arrest, and the doctors on-scene said they brought him back. So inasmuch as anything like this can be lucky...at least it happened somewhere treatment was literally just moments away. Time is not on your side here... He's able to tweet, and he's listed as stable.

It's beginning to look like the story of this year's playoffs is health. Harden's basically missed all 4 games; Kyree had to leave today. Nets probably can't win if both are still out. Danny Green is a notable contributor for the Sixers; he's out for the rest of the series with the Hawks. I don't think that will matter in the end; I don't think the Hawks can stop the Sixers often enough. BUT if Embiid has issues, and he's been looking dinged up...who knows. Mitchell's ankle is a question mark, and they need him. Which all means the Suns should just put the Nuggets down tonight. Don't take unnecessary chances.

Yeah, that's fine with me; it clarifies things. Not sure it's needed, as it kinda adds more clutter, but if you want it explicit, there ya go. Definitely shouldn't impact cost. I came back to mention that some advantages implicitly *can* be turned off. Indirect typically can; the exception would be from a fixed point (not yourself) variations. Turning it off would give you a 2nd fixed point of origin. But the "any path from origin to target" aspect? That implicitly includes the direct path...which is in effect "turning it off." The other is that autofire can be used in single-shot mode by default. And as you point out: you can manipulate the power's intensity readily. This really weakens the argument that it's all one power and the e.g. AP can't be removed. Well, it's not an 8c6 AP power; it's an Nd6 AP power as written, with 1 <= N <= 8. Hmmm...Usable Simultaneously actually can be "turned off"...you only teleport yourself...or used at a reduced level...you can teleport up to 8, but you choose to teleport only 2 (you and one other). So the rules already have fairly significant power adaptability built into many places. Hmm. Linguistic nitpick time. +0 Fixed...is an advantage on its face. Ergo it can be turned off, but this, of course, creates a contradiction. Don't want that. A specific case of why this is a problem would be Stun Only, which is another +0. If I can turn that off, I get 2 potentially useful variations for the price of one, and there's no downside to taking Stun Only...I just turn it off. The fix? Call it -0...a *limitation*. Then it can't be turned off. As I say, perhaps a linguistic nitpick, but better to consider these earlier rather than later. I can't offhand think of that many +0's to start with...so I'm not sure which, if any, shouldn't be treated as a 'limitation' of sorts.

This argument doesn't hold up that well for me. The hatemongers have far greater reach; the Cassandras have the same reach. What is less clear is the reception of the messages from each side. This is only a couple weeks old: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/poll-qanon-election-conspiracies/index.html The Cassandras can't break the absurd belief that Trump won the election. There's a dangerously high belief in the QAnon BS. So...yes, the ground is different compared to, let's say as late as the start of WW II...but much of that, IMO, was the speed of communication. It was easier to hide things; it was easier to exert tight control in a limited area because it was harder to get a message out. OK, this changed starting in the late 60's, with live or near-live TV feeds. This was a big issue in Viet Nam; we saw the problems directly, and that hugely energized the anti-war protests. What got Ray Rice booted from football? The elevator video. Pictures are massively, immediately impactful; words often aren't. The other aspect: the basic ground might not be as fertile, but the hatemongers have been working that ground for over 20 years.

Why would you build the MP with a 7d6 AP and a separate d6 basic? Ever? Why not make it 8d6, if nothing else? 7d6 AP is only 44 active so far, so you can't make it 9d6 necessarily, but even if there's other advantages like No Range Mods which will become more expensive, you can likely make it 8d6. This is why forcing another +1/4 advantage for selectable is something I'd *never* take. You're increasing the active points for the slot, forcing a larger MP. You're increasing the END cost. And for no mechanically sound reason that I can see, at least on first glance. I'm not saying it can't be sensible to use it like this...especially in the situation where it's only on one specific advantage...but at this point, I'd need to see it. I won't build multiple 2 or 3 slot MPs; I will build something like this: Blast 11d6 1/2 END Blast 9d6 AP 1/2 END Blast 8d6 Autofire 1/2 END Blast 8d6 Double KB 1/2 END, Reduced Penetration I will also do things where some of em are against PD, some against ED...maginetic force ball versus electrical, say. I think the one clear case where turning an advantage off could be good, is AoE. BUT, AoE already has Selective for that crowded-area situation. Admittedly, I think it's an advantage that can be hard to justify, but it's there. If Selective is only +1/4, Selectable can't be more than +0. That said, there've been cases where it forces me to use a Naked Advantage. I am VERY fond of my High Scale advantage for Running and Flight. MegaScale is way too much; NC multipliers are way too little, especially if you want to apply Reduced END. For one quick example: 5 SPD, 20m base movement, High Scale (1m = 15m, +1/2) gives a speed of 270 MPH. Which means it's a nice, simple, non-abusive movement power, with a good combat move and a nice, but not excessive, non-combat speed. High Scale uses Megascale as the basis, so it's non-combat movement with the nasty OCV and DCV penalties...so by the rules, I *have* to build it as a base power and a naked advantage, or it's effectively unusable in combat. So...overall, yes. I think requiring an advantage to be used all the time might be an issue in an EC...but not in a VPP or MP that I can see. I definitely don't see requiring an additional advantage cost to do it. But that just suggests...ok, let's see if there are counter arguments. --Can we build a power where turning off an advantage creates play issues? What's the power, in what context (standalone or MP)? --Similarly, can we build powers where Duke's Selectable works as a separate advantage on the power? I *am* thinking primarily of character powers...not equipment. A grenade is gonna be Explosion, period; you can't turn that off. Teflon-coated bullets can't turn off the AP. BUT, the gun might be bought as 1d6 RKA AP with 2 clips...and have 1 of the clips be Teflon (AP) and one normal (non-AP). So common sense should be applied with equipment.

I think we learn. Then we forget. Love may be a stronger motive than hate or fear, but the latter two are much, much easier to access and manipulate. So, if you want some hope? It's maybe not that we forget, but that fear- and hate-mongering is now far easier to do than ever before, and on a massively larger level.

I can live with the occasional dimensional hop/alternate universe storyline, particularly the What If... setups. Where things fall apart is when they get overused. And of course when you have the "multiple universes collide!!!" BS. That's pure retcon. Just crossed my mind: when that's the case, like retrieving the Time Stone in Endgame, it's pure deus ex machina. Oh, there's no solution in this universe!!! We're DOOMED!!! Nah, we'll just universe-hop.... <SIGH> When it's more like a series of What If... situations, it's probably OK, so long as it doesn't come back to directly impact the original universe.

Not quite. Time travel involves 2 loathsome alternatives, philosophically: 1. Paradox. True paradox. "I go back to kill my grandfather before my father is born." THEN what? 2. Predestination. If certain things are NOT possible...that is, time travel exists but the traveler *cannot* in some way, shape, or form, create that paradox, then predestination to some degree must follow. The alternate universes theories avoid #1, and thus #2 doesn't come into play. Time travel in a multiverse allows for a compromise, whereby you aren't actually traveling in time, but in some manner *creating* a new alternate universe. One can even say that interactive (rather than observational) time travel is the trigger...which means time travel is EXTREMELY!!!!! hard. In case you hadn't noticed, yes, I've spent far too long over the years thinking about this. The biggest problems with alternate universes: 1. Massive confusion. 2. They really disrupt suspension of disbelief, at least for me. It makes too obvious that everything is under the writers' control. Ergo: 3. Nothing in the story...in ANY story in these universes...really matters now, does it? Alternate universes are as bad as major retcons, IMO.

Walk-in pizza oven??? SOLD!!!