Doc Democracy

Re: DumDum Ammunition I am not quite getting what you are aiming at here in workable terms (though everyone else seems to - I need a remedial class!) So, looking at having weapons and ammo. If you have a rifle that can take three types of ammo and you want to build it so that regardless of the kind of ammo, you have the same AP? So, for example, you need to build a rifle as 8D6 then add 1 - normal ammo - +4D6 2 - armour piercing ammo - +1/2 advantage (up to 40 AP) 3 - dum-dums - +2D6 (if <6rPD), +2D6 (if <3rPD), +4D6 (if 0 PD) All of these would have similar Active Points. The ammo would then be usable across a range of weapons all of which might have different amounts of base active points... Doc

Re: DumDum Ammunition Was wondering whether dum-dums might best be simulated by additional limited damage +1/2D6 KA (only if target has less than 3rPD), +1/2D6 (only if target has 0rPD) So dum-dum ammunition does not add an advantage but actually adds damage that will only be effective if the target is wearing light or no armour. Doc

Re: Facing and Passing That must have been weird! "WTF, I can't remember writing THAT!"......."Whoops, it wasn't me" :) Doc

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

Re: So, while we're talking about things that shouldn't be in frameworks again... If you were a player and asked me that I would ask you to give me an example because, if I would normally say no to them in a multipower then I would say my answer would probably be no... Doc

Re: VPP discusion I am presuming that this question and the follow-up from Christopher was the Q&A that you have been referring to? Now forgive me if I am wrong but, to me, that is what he said - RAW, it is wrong, and Hyperman has come up with an example of why the structure is disallowed. However - the meat of the response was (bolding added by me) My other thought is that reading the Q&A I do see some of the issues, though I do not think I would go as far as to disallow without question. There are advantages in switching powers a la multipower over VPP. If I have a VPP where I can have any power any time but need to make a skill roll to make those changes but instead want one where I can have ready and instant access to a small number of pre-defined powers but need to make a skill roll to change those ready ones back at my base, then I have to decide where the advantage lies. Am I better off being able to tool up and have anything I want whenever I need it from that small group or am I better off having anything I want at any time? To me the answer to that question is obviously the second - I may suffer a small limitation in needing to make a skill roll but I can do anything I want. If the question is changed to mean that if I want to use any power (pre-defined or not) that I need to have a focus ready to hand then the balance changes. How many foci could I carry? Once that number is limited then the balance swings closer to the first being better - if I have defined the slots in advance then I have probably also sorted out foci, if I have not then I need to find the right focus before I can use the power... I am not 100% convinced of the value of the limitation for 'acts like a multipower' if the focus limitation is also in play. At this point I am not sure that the multipower and VPP costs and benefits level off. If there was no focus limitation there (or if the foci were so ubiquitous that I could pick them up anywhere as and when needed) then I think that the VPP definitely deserves a limitation for acting like a multipower. Doc

Re: VPP discusion I think Steve is probably right, this delves deeply into the game design/game philosophy. You have received a legal response and I do not think Steve often provides knee-jerk responses. I think he answered the question within the strictures of the rules as they lie. I think that he indicated the there are two tools there and it is not expected that one will be used to create the other. I am sure that he, as a player, has twisted the rules to suit his games and has deep concerns about the way certain things play out in certain circumstances but was not able to iron out in the rules as written. I am sure that he pulls Multipowers towards VPP style effects and vice versa. Its just that all of those things are player/gm stuff. As game designer/owner he plays a straight bat and provides proper, quasi-legal pronouncements. If you want real thoughts - buy him several beers at a con, THEN ask him the questions you REALLY want his thoughts on!! Doc

Re: Getting Stronger and Tougher the More I Get Hurt Building with aids etc can often lead to this problem - you need to get hurt before getting stronger. The other way to do it is to build the character at its maximum strength and then add on some of the limitations - you have 80 STR at your best but you build up to that slowly starting at 55 STR and adding 5 STR each time you get hit by a 60 active point power or higher. In this case you do not need to take damage but you do grow in power. There is a real limitation in there as you do need to be in combat and targetted before you can achieve your potential and you do risk getting taken out before contributing more. However - you have a defined power growth path and remove a lot of the accounting associated with adjustment powers. Doc

Re: Facing and Passing However, for a player who did switch movement modes a lot - it would be useful to purchase this to avoid the rules problem of switching modes - everything would be flight used as flight, running, jumping or whatever else.... Doc

Re: Facing and Passing

Re: Facing and Passing The thread Sean was thinking about (I think) was one on running and jumping in the same phase. Christopher appears to quote the books but I cant check that until I get home...but what he wrote there was Now that sounds like rulebook language which would mitigate mixing movement modes outside of half phases but the consensus on the thread seemed to be to ignore the rules and do what sounded like it made sense... Doc

Re: Facing and Passing

Re: Facing and Passing Now, I've been around HERO for quite a bit and lose track of things. I remember being annoyed at an official ruling on movement that seemed against common sense to me. The premise was if someone with 20m running and SPD 4 was chasing someone with 15m running and SPD 6 would they catch them? The initial set up was that quarry was 6" away and they started on phase 12. On segment 12 both move, quarry is now just 1" ahead. On segment 2 quarry moves and is 16" ahead On segment 3 pursuer moves and catches quarry. Now that was back when acceleration was instantaneous. Don't have books in front of me but has that changed? Looking at the speeds, the quarry is obviously faster - 90m per turn rather than 80m. It is an artefact of the system that allows the catch to be possible. I am only asking as the discussion on fighting not being stop motion and not wanting to go to segment by segment movement seem relevant here. What is the current rule stance? Would the quarry lose the game of tag on segment 3 under current rules?? Doc

Re: Facing and Passing Markdoc I am going to have to invite you to come to London and run a game for me and Sean sometime. It would be really interesting to see how we game round a table rather than talk about it round an internet forum! Doc

Re: Knockout Gas Indeed, spending one of those extra phases recovering will actually do the opposite.

Re: Knockout Gas Hmmm. It would seem to me that there may be a need for a standard effect continuous. It would be a difficult one to write as it might be an advantage for some and a limitation for others. If you have a gas grenade that will affect the victim every two seconds they are exposed then it is 4 SPD above the SPD 2 VIPER mook using it. For the Viper martial artist it is 2 SPD below his SPD 8. I would say that you purchase a continuous attack with standard effect and that it costs a bonus of +1/2 for every SPD above your own or limits at +1/2 for every SPD below your own. That would provide an option for standard kit having standard effect regardless of who pays for it. Obviously, if you pick it up and throw it you also avoid the question of whether the effect happens at SPD 2 because the mook bought it, or SPD 6 because the Hero threw it. Doc

Re: Facing and Passing Well, in my adjusted interposition, the sacrificed DCV adds to the DCV of the defended object rather than add to the defenders OCV. So the orc has OCV 6 and is fighting the OCV/DCV 7 Knight so that he can gain access to the DCV 3 object. The Knight can sacrifice 4 DCV to bring the object up to DCV 7 and leave the knight at DCV 3. A dodging princess would then have a 4 CV advantage meaning she would only get hit on 7 or less. The knight could sacrifice another 2 DCV to gain the princess another 1 DCV. Any hit aimed at the princess that would have hit the DCV 3 but not the imporved DCV automatically hits the knight. He has successfully interposed himself. The SFX of this is the knight using his body to get between the princess and any attacker. It is effective against multiple opponents and allows the knight to continue offensive action. The more opponents however, the less effective he will be offensively (-1 OCV per additional opponent) as he has to put more and more effort into his defence. Unbalanced or a decent heroic option?? Doc

Re: Facing and Passing

Re: Facing and Passing At least two of us seem to be on the same page. That was the first point of Sean's OP. Given that situation, is there a need for something more rules-y? I suggested a change to the Interpose rules - you could see that being used as a defender does his utmost to defend against multiple attackers - taking hits aimed at him and the defended object that would usually never hit him and possibly having a chance to hit back. That would get away from the detail of HERO manoeuvres and back to a more narrative style - the guard stance would allow the defender to choose how far he risks his own safety to defend another. It would add a rules option to those that exist. Do we need something along those lines? That was the second point in Sean's OP. Doc

Re: Facing and Passing Yeah - was completely new to me too. Checked with Steve on the interpretation of covering an area. (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/89765-Guarding-an-area?p=2332342#post2332342)

Re: Facing and Passing I think the example has gone past its usefulness - we are talking about the example and changing it to better fit our perspective rather than the key issue we began with. That idea is that, if you are defending something and an opponent is confident of surviving a hit from you, they can simply walk past you and attack the defended object. It doesn't really matter what the context is or relative merits of the combatants. From the rules, it would seem apparent that this is the case. Manic Typist has a workable solution for a complete defence option. An area can be guarded that can quite easily encompass the defended object and block any attack that arrives there - each phase refreshing the block back to even OCV vs OCV and taking -2 penalties for subsequent blocks. Ultimately, however, the defender will roll an 18, fail and the defended object will be exposed to attack etc. This option buys time, which may be all that is needed. Given a determined attacker then the rules do not appear to provide an alternative that will prevent that opponent, who can take at least one hit, reaching the defended object. We have discussed options that would appear satisfactory if there is one attacker but if there is more than one, becomes virtually useless. Can we agree on those points without relating back to knights and orcs? Or do I have it wrong somewhere? Doc

Re: Knockout Gas I think neatly is the word here. There is verisimilitude and there is easy gameplay. As seen through this (and other) threads, they are not always happy bedfellows... This is a case where I am not sure that it is worth the bureaucracy to seek the verisimilitude...I can see attacks that hit a location and 'tag' a character that would then be resolved on the next action phase of that character. However, it adds stuff to remember and deal with without really adding too much to the gameplay... IMO of course. Doc

OK. We have been discussing guarding an area and looked at the rules. It would appear possible to interpret two ways and I thought I would come see what you meant. To guard an area you are able to cover an area with a radius equal to your reach (one metre) doubled (presumably to accommodate the fact that you can move suddenly one way or another to extend the area covered). You also note that a weapon can extend that reach, which is where the interpretation is required. If you are unarmed then your reach is one metre. For guarding an area you cover a 2m radius circle. If you have a one metre sword, your effective reach is 2m. For guarding an area does that mean the guarded area is 2m + 1m for a 3m radius circle or does it mean 2m doubled for a 4m radius. If you have a 2 metre spear, your effective reach is 3m. For guarding an area does that mean the guarded area is 3m + 1m for a 4m radius circle or does it mean 3m doubled for a 6m radius. In my thinking the former areas make more sense as the additional radius is due to moving about which would be constant across the weapons. in the latter circumstances the carrier of the longer, heavier weapon would be moving upto three times the distance to cover added space... :-) Doc

Re: Facing and Passing