Steve Long

I don't know the former well enough to comment (I'd have to track those comics down and do a bunch of research reading). The latter I only vaguely remember. Wild Dog was initially on our list of possible characters to consider, but AFAIK there's no authoritative collection of the character's appearances, which makes going back and doing the necessary research reading difficult.

No, because Ron's already written extensively (3-4 columns) about Marshal Law -- search back through his archives and you should find them easily enough.

The standard way would be to build the power as a Multipower, each slot with a different version of the Only Works Against [Limited Type Of Attack] Limitation. But that's an awful lot of character sheet clutter, so consider talking to your GM about a custom Advantage that would allow the character to do what you describe.

If a character is larger than human normal (either all the time, or because he sometimes uses Growth), and he wants to have a Damage Shield that covers his entire large body, he should buy the Area Of Effect (Surface) to cover his longest dimension — his height — and it then covers his entire body.

That's really up to the GM. Your value doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but other GMs may hold different opinions. I don't recall any published rule about this off the top of my head.

The text as written is correct. The reference to 6E1 219 is to the rules for Takes No Damage, not to explain the value of the Advantage.

I’m going to rephrase the question generically to make the answer more generally applicable: Q: Can a Grabbed character use any form of movement to either help him break free or to move the Grabbing character along with him? A: Generally the answer is no — a Grabbed character stops moving, and cannot initiate any movement until he breaks free. (See 6E2 64, top left.) But in light of common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects, the GM may choose to allow this, but should consider the following: —if the movement ability comes from an Accessible Focus or a Restrainable Power it can never be used while Grabbed. The same may apply to most forms of Physical Manifestation as well. —using movement to escape from a Grab adds to STR as discussed on 6E2 25. —Teleportation by definition allows a character to escape from Grabs, as stated on 6E1 300 (which also has rules for a teleporting character “dragging along” the character Grabbing him). —the GM should factor the Grabbed character’s STR into the decision. If he doesn’t have enough STR to move the Grabbing character under ordinary circumstances, it’s highly unlikely that adding movement into the mix would matter.

No. Shape Shift is bought per Sense Group. If you don't buy it to cover a given Sense Group, then that Sense Group perceives that aspect of the character in the same way it always does: a human still looks human; a dog still looks like a dog; and so on.

No, because that's not how you buy being permanently large or small. What you have to buy is one of the Size Templates, detailed in the appendices of 6E1. These provide the same abilities as Growth or Shrinking, but on a permanent basis.

I'm sorry, but I don't answer game design/philosophy questions.

1. Yes, it’s possible to buy a Change Environment that reduces OCV or DCV. This qualifies as a “point of damage,” so it costs 5 Character Points per -1 and requires the GM’s approval (per 6E1 175-76). Furthermore, if the GM finds this too effective compared to Drain, he should increase the cost, as discussed on 6E1 176. 2. The double cost effect you refer to relates to Adjustment Powers. Since Change Environment isn’t an Adjustment Power, that rule doesn’t apply to a CE that reduces DCV. However, a GM may rule that it applies in his campaign if he feels that’s necessary to maintain game balance in general, or parity between CE and Drain.

1. This was asked a few weeks back, which is where you remember it from (and why it’s not easy to find). The answer I posted then: “Unless the GM rules otherwise, the Required Roll’s penalty should derive from the Adjusted Active Point total, thus making the roll more difficult (if the power’s Aided) or easier (if Drained).” 2. The modifier to the Power roll to change a VPP depends upon the Active Point total in the power the character creates with the Pool. If the power’s less than the full Active Points permitted by the Pool, the fact that the Pool’s been Adjusted is probably irrelevant. If the power uses the full Active Points in the Pool, the modifier derives from the Adjusted Active Point total, thus making the roll more difficult (if the power’s Aided) or easier (if Drained). 2a. C’mon, now, what does your common sense tell you? Obviously you can’t subject a character to a modifier based on something that hasn’t happened yet. 2b. No, because he’s not reconfiguring anything. He’s keeping it the same, and some external force has increased it. However, it’s certainly possible, based on special effects and common/dramatic sense, that the GM might require another roll to see if the character can “maintain control” of the power, in which case you use the Adjusted Active Points. That’s a special case created by the GM, though, not the default situation.

There's a good reason for that, IMO -- none of the stories are particularly worth remembering. Even the Alan Moore one seems to me just about the dullest story he's ever written.

See 6E1 231.

This time out, Ron Edwards and I take a look at the eponymous Vigilante: Red Goggles At Midnight

I'm not going to answer that question specifically, because it uses pre-6th Edition rules, and I stopped answering such questions with the publication of 6E several years ago. However, I will say that, whether a character is using the rules for simulating Mental Powers with ACV and AVAD, or even whether he's building some sort of power without advantages and defining it as an "illusory" something, is largely meaningless. Either an effect has X special effect, or it uses a strong enough Mental Illusions to simulate X special effect, or it's not X special effect and can't trigger a Vulnerability or Susceptibility to X. In situations where you think there's some doubt or "wiggle room" to argue a different interpretation, that's left to the GM to rule on. That's why we keep 'em around instead of letting them loose to roam free in the wild.

See 6E1 321.

Opening caveat: I can’t shake the feeling that I addressed this subject at some point, but after a diligent search I can’t find anything. I reserve the right to change my answer later if and when a previous ruling comes to light. I’m going to rephrase this question more generically for purposes of clarity: Q: Can an Image or a Mental Illusion of a damaging phenomenon that has a particular special effect (such as “a blazing fire” or “a deadly ice storm”) trigger a Susceptibility or Vulnerability to that special effect? A: For Images, the answer is easy: no. The rules for Images specifically state that they cannot cause harm, even if bought to affect the Touch Group. For Mental Illusions, the answer is a little trickier. They can cause damage (with a high enough declared Effect Roll), and that damage functions against PD or ED based on its special effect (6E1 251). Extending that logic, the default rule is that a Mental Illusion can trigger a Susceptibility or Vulnerability — but the final decision is up to the GM based on the nature of the Complication. For example, suppose a character who wears powered armor has Vulnerability to Electricity attacks, defined as “they cause my armor to generate “feedback” that further injures me.” In that case, the GM might rule that a Mental Illusion, no matter how convincing, simply can’t trigger that sort of physical effect.

That's correct -- it was eliminated. Characters can't use Entangle to form "walls" anymore. That's what Barrier is for.

That's up to the GM based on common and dramatic sense. Most powers bought with Long-Lasting tend to be fairly "low impact" things (like "rapidly clean the house" or "make plants blossom"), so I suspect many GMs would let things like that keep functioning regardless. If it's a CE that has a major combat effect, though, that might not be the case.

It produces a light, but a light so faint that it's easily blocked/drowned out/etc. by any phenomenon that interferes with sight: ordinary nighttime darkness; smoke; fog; and so on.

1. How carrying a visible object (such as an Obvious Focus) affects an invisible character carrying it is up to the GM. Depending on the situation it might virtually negate the benefits of Invisibility, or affect them only slightly. 2. To turn Obvious Foci and the like invisible with a character, let’s keep things simple and adapt an Adder from Resistant Protection. For a +10 Character Point Adder, Affects Carried Items, a character’s Invisibility extends to Obvious Foci and other objects that would ordinarily be visible when carried by an Invisible character. Absent that, you’d use some sort of heavily Limited Invisibility UAA ability, but that’s getting more complicated than this needs to be, methinks.

Yes.

Clarification: by "HTK" the original poster meant HKA, a Hand-to-Hand Killing Attack. So, here's the question rephrased for general purposes: Q: If a character has a Damage Shield built with HKA or HA, does he get to apply his STR to increase the attack’s damage, as usual for those powers? A: Yes (in fact it’s required with HA, since HA adds to STR rather than STR adding to it).

As stated on 6E1 183, "A character may apply his Damage Negation to the damage caused by an AVAD even if he lacks the specified defenses for the attack." An NND is a form of AVAD, so yes, Damage Negation applies to it even if the character lacks the defined defense.