Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 117
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 7:05 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #117
champ-l-digest Friday, January 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 117
In this issue:
Re: Continuing Charges
Re: Skill Levels and DEX
Re: Continuing Charges
I'm baaack ...
Re: Continuing Charges
Re: Continuing Charges
Re: Continuing Charges
Re: OT: Predictions for 1999
Re: Conversion to Hero Question (Again :)
Re: Continuing Charges
Power Construction question
Re: Power Construction question
Re: Power Construction question
Re: Power Construction question
Re: Power Construction question
Re: OT: Predictions for 1999
Charges and END (Continuing Charges)
Other Mailing Lists
Re: New Year's Predictions
Re: Other Mailing Lists
Re: CSL vs DCV (was CHAR: Anita Carstairs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:41:40 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Continuing Charges
>At 04:21 PM 12/30/98 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>>At 01:10 PM 12/30/98 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>>>>If I want to buy an instant power (e.g., an Energy Blast) with
>>>>>continuing charges, need I also buy the advantage "Continuous"?
>>>>
>>>>Yup. But you don't have to buy Uncontrolled.
>>>
>>>On what authority do you base this? I can't find it.
>>
>>On the way Uncontrolled, Continuous, and Continuous charges are defined.
>>Continuous makes a power that's instant contstant; Continuous charges run a
>>constant power until the charge runs out. QED. Otherwise they'd have
>>mentioned Uncontrolled under the Continuing charges discussion, where they
>>specifically mention needing Continuous for instant powers. Note that the
>>language about deactivating a Continuing Charge is also essentially the same
>>as the one under Uncontrolled...if Uncontrolled was needed, there'd be no
>>need to make a special note under continuing charges.
>
>I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. I meant, on what do you base
>the first assertion, that in order to buy continuing charges for an instant
>power, you need to buy the Continuous advantage? It doesn't say that, nor
>does it say in HSR (that I can find) that continuing charges run a constant
>power only, and not an instant one (although of course, it seems logical,
>which
>is why I asked in the first place).
>
Having seen Bob's quote about this, now I'm wondering myself. You could
read the line he's quoted as implying just the opposite...but it seems
unlikely they'd give, effectively, one Advantage with Constant powers, and a
much greater one with Instant ones. The fact that the example both
mentioned and given is a Constant power supported this idea. Oddly, now
that I look at it, the first line under Uncontrolled implies the exact
opposite. Hurm.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:51:04 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Skill Levels and DEX
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
>
>WS> The first half of this is a circular argument; the situation is
>WS> munchkiny because the cost of levels relative to DEX is broken; if it
>WS> was right, it'd be a nonissue.
>
>I disagree.
You're welcome to disagree, but since I started this argument by saying that
the reason levels were broken in the system was that they were too expensive
relative to DEX, if you expect to be taken serious in contradicting this,
you need to do so on something other than blind assertation. Demonstrating
another, apparently legal way to produce what levels do cheaply is about the
easiest challenge to their cost I know.
>
>WS> And you can't get a better overall CV however.
>
>I never said otherwise. I've always stated that I can get a better OCV
>through skill levels than you can through DEX. Depth vs. breadth.
At usually a sufficiently minor benefit in depth outweighed by a serious
enough loss in areas of breadth that they often look like a fool's choice.
>
>WS> Thus it's still generally more attractive, and gets progressively more
>WS> so the larger a level you're buying. Even at 3 point levels, you're
>WS> getting at best two CV for 6 points, where the DEX will be doing the
>WS> same.
>
>Not the same. You get +1 OCV and +1 DCV, whereas I get +2 OCV. Depth
>vs. breadth. Neither is inherently better than the other.
Maybe I'd agree if that was all you were getting for it. But I don't
believe you can write off the initiative and possibly DEX/skill roll issues
that easy.
>
>WS> 5 or 8 point levels are complete losers.
>
>5-point levels are still a good deal unless you insist on crocking DEX (and
>your GM lets you get away with it), and 8-point levels are great if your
>DEX exceeds a characteristic maximum.
And I repeat, if levels were priced properly, the DEX would be a nonissue.
Nor have you shown otherwise. And the latter is normally only an issue in
Heroic games, and not even always there.
>
>WS> As to the SPD thing...even if they are buying it, so what? Your guy with
>WS> the levels would simply be buying it seperately at the same cost, so it's
>WS> not relevant to the discussion.
>
>Which is why I ignored it in my math.
>
Not the first time you didn't.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:20:10 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Continuing Charges
>>>>>>If I want to buy an instant power (e.g., an Energy Blast) with
>>>>>>continuing charges, need I also buy the advantage "Continuous"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup. But you don't have to buy Uncontrolled.
>>>>
>>>>On what authority do you base this? I can't find it.
>>>
>>>On the way Uncontrolled, Continuous, and Continuous charges are defined.
>>>Continuous makes a power that's instant contstant; Continuous charges run a
>>>constant power until the charge runs out. QED. Otherwise they'd have
>>>mentioned Uncontrolled under the Continuing charges discussion, where they
>>>specifically mention needing Continuous for instant powers. Note that the
>>>language about deactivating a Continuing Charge is also essentially the
same
>>>as the one under Uncontrolled...if Uncontrolled was needed, there'd be no
>>>need to make a special note under continuing charges.
>>
>>I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. I meant, on what do you base
>>the first assertion, that in order to buy continuing charges for an instant
>>power, you need to buy the Continuous advantage? It doesn't say that, nor
>>does it say in HSR (that I can find) that continuing charges run a constant
>>power only, and not an instant one (although of course, it seems logical,
>>which
>>is why I asked in the first place).
>>
>
>Having seen Bob's quote about this, now I'm wondering myself. You could
>read the line he's quoted as implying just the opposite...but it seems
>unlikely they'd give, effectively, one Advantage with Constant powers, and a
>much greater one with Instant ones. The fact that the example both
>mentioned and given is a Constant power supported this idea. Oddly, now
>that I look at it, the first line under Uncontrolled implies the exact
>opposite. Hurm.
Well, that's why I asked. It would be most convenient for me if Bob's
interpretation were correct, but I suspect that yours is. The wording is
what threw me in the first place, implying as it does that this simple
limitation can buy what would otherwise be a +1 advantage.
Steve Long and Hero5 editors take note!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:24:14 -0600
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
Subject: I'm baaack ...
Overtime is over, and the holidays are almost done. I'm back to annoy all
and sundry :-)
Steven Mitchell
mdmitche@advicom.net
------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 1998 19:23:59 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Continuing Charges
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"GD" == Geoff Depew <mephron@idt.net> writes:
GD> Tell me where it is.
It should have been sent to you when you subscribed to the list. At least
Goeff Speare did when he ran it. Failing that, you should always be able
to find it at
<URL:http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/champions.html>
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2jBWfgl+vIlSVSNkRAlXdAKCmsX1O0At73lRZs2rx7OFL+xLyvQCeJu69
z6rg+GlEdaK1AwBPQRjoO+Y=
=zR9H
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
GPG Key: same as my PGP 5 (DH) key \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:01:40 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Continuing Charges
>>Having seen Bob's quote about this, now I'm wondering myself. You could
>>read the line he's quoted as implying just the opposite...but it seems
>>unlikely they'd give, effectively, one Advantage with Constant powers, and a
>>much greater one with Instant ones. The fact that the example both
>>mentioned and given is a Constant power supported this idea. Oddly, now
>>that I look at it, the first line under Uncontrolled implies the exact
>>opposite. Hurm.
>
>Well, that's why I asked. It would be most convenient for me if Bob's
>interpretation were correct, but I suspect that yours is. The wording is
>what threw me in the first place, implying as it does that this simple
>limitation can buy what would otherwise be a +1 advantage.
>
Well it _is_ a good deal, since Continuing Charges pretty much have to
function as Uncontrolled to operate the way they do in the listing for
them...but now that I look at it, you'd be damned if you'd know my
interpetation is right from looking at the entry under Continuing Charges,
Continuous, or Uncontrolled.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:35:28 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Continuing Charges
At 09:01 AM 12/31/98 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>>>Having seen Bob's quote about this, now I'm wondering myself. You could
>>>read the line he's quoted as implying just the opposite...but it seems
>>>unlikely they'd give, effectively, one Advantage with Constant powers,
and a
>>>much greater one with Instant ones. The fact that the example both
>>>mentioned and given is a Constant power supported this idea. Oddly, now
>>>that I look at it, the first line under Uncontrolled implies the exact
>>>opposite. Hurm.
>>
>>Well, that's why I asked. It would be most convenient for me if Bob's
>>interpretation were correct, but I suspect that yours is. The wording is
>>what threw me in the first place, implying as it does that this simple
>>limitation can buy what would otherwise be a +1 advantage.
>>
>
>Well it _is_ a good deal, since Continuing Charges pretty much have to
>function as Uncontrolled to operate the way they do in the listing for
>them...but now that I look at it, you'd be damned if you'd know my
>interpetation is right from looking at the entry under Continuing Charges,
>Continuous, or Uncontrolled.
For what it's worth, I agree with the FAQ ruling as Rat quoted it, at
least in terms of how it *should* be. I'm of a mind that how it's actually
written is that Continuous isn't needed on an Instant Power with Continuing
Charges, but I do think that it should be.
Similarly, I'm also of a mind that Charges should be an extra -1/2
Limitation (or yield twice as many charges) for Powers that already don't
cost END, and that Damage Shield should be an extra +1/2 Advantage for
Powers that already have No Range. The principle here is that a Power
Modifier should either affect all applicable Powers equally, or compensate
for any differences.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:27:17 -72800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Predictions for 1999
Bob Greenwade writes:
> Anyway, here are my predictions for 1999:
>
> The World At Large:
>
> 8. There will be a mechanical disaster in NASA's space shuttle program,
> but without fatality (though serious injury is another question).
Meaningless without a better definition of "mechanical disaster",
since just about everything done in space has either never been done
before, or only been done a handful of times. Is the shuttle arm
malfunctioning (as I believe it did on one mission in the past) a
mechanical disaster? Or merely a breakdown?
> 9. The "Y2K bug" will start causing blackouts, utility failures,
> financial miscalculations, and other problems well before the end of the
> year, though nothing that causes widespread troubles other than panic.
This is a really easy one to call. After all, the year 2000
shows up in financial plans and maintenance systems far before the
current date actually is January 1, 2000.
> 10. After a Senate trial that lasts longer than anyone now expects,
> President Clinton will be left in office, but will lose many rights and
> priveleges that most Presidents are allowed, including his pension and the
> right to hold elected office after leaving.
Since the trial is expected to last upwards of 12 months, taking it
past the Jan 1, 2000 date, this one isn't a valid prediction for 1999 (for
2000, maybe :-).
> As a disclaimer, I make no claims to psychic powers, inside information,
> particularly good sense regarding coming events, or anything similar. And,
> as with last year's predictions, if anyone wants to keep this list and echo
> it back on January 1, 2000 (or when everyone's computer recovers from the
> Y2K bug, whichever comes first), that'd be perfectly fine.
Why are you doing this, again?
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:38:42 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Conversion to Hero Question (Again :)
At 04:08 PM 12/31/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Has anyone heard of the game Dark Conspiracy by GDW? If so, has anyone
>tried converting any of it to Hero?
>
>
Yes and no. The same system is(was) used for Treveller:The New Era and
Twilight2000 2nd ed. if that helps.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:56:34 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Continuing Charges
> Similarly, I'm also of a mind that Charges should be an extra -1/2
>Limitation (or yield twice as many charges) for Powers that already don't
>cost END, and that Damage Shield should be an extra +1/2 Advantage for
>Powers that already have No Range. The principle here is that a Power
>Modifier should either affect all applicable Powers equally, or compensate
>for any differences.
I've always assumed in both cases this was true. Particularly the first
case, there's nothing stopping someone from buying Costs Endurance, and
_then_ buying Charges on it. Is someone wanted to get fussy you could go
"Fine. I buy Costs Charges on it, then."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:25:44 -0800
From: "Ron Abitz" <abitz@richpoor.com>
Subject: Power Construction question
I am building a character who can teleport with the SFX of dimensional
teleport. And when he teleports it "stiffens" the dimension in the area.
I was thinking of using Suppress radius or explosion with +1/4 SFX
dimensional powers (or does it need to be the +2 lv?) 2 shot autofire (so
that it will effect both ends of teleport) +1/4 (?), +1/4 Personal
Immunity, -1/2 no range, -1/2 linked with teleport.
If I am understanding it correctly when he teleports the the suppression
will stay intell his next phase when he does not pay the end it will go
away.
Ron Abitz
abitz@richpoor.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:16:31 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Power Construction question
>I am building a character who can teleport with the SFX of dimensional
>teleport. And when he teleports it "stiffens" the dimension in the area.
>
>I was thinking of using Suppress radius or explosion with +1/4 SFX
>dimensional powers (or does it need to be the +2 lv?) 2 shot autofire (so
>that it will effect both ends of teleport) +1/4 (?), +1/4 Personal
>Immunity, -1/2 no range, -1/2 linked with teleport.
>If I am understanding it correctly when he teleports the the suppression
>will stay intell his next phase when he does not pay the end it will go
>away.
Leaving an attack (which is what Suppress is) after you leave with a
Teleport is very tricky. The no-attack-and-move rule seems on the surface
to forbid it. I'd thought about this because it does make some concepts
(like the teleporter in the old DP7 book) very hard to do. Of course
there's good reasons for this.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 01:19:47 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Power Construction question
>>I was thinking of using Suppress radius or explosion with +1/4 SFX
>>dimensional powers (or does it need to be the +2 lv?) 2 shot autofire (so
>>that it will effect both ends of teleport) +1/4 (?), +1/4 Personal
>>Immunity, -1/2 no range, -1/2 linked with teleport.
>>If I am understanding it correctly when he teleports the the suppression
>>will stay intell his next phase when he does not pay the end it will go
>>away.
>
>Leaving an attack (which is what Suppress is) after you leave with a
>Teleport is very tricky. The no-attack-and-move rule seems on the surface
>to forbid it. I'd thought about this because it does make some concepts
>(like the teleporter in the old DP7 book) very hard to do. Of course
>there's good reasons for this.
Definitely so, but trigger usually takes care of it, and something like
that is VERY expensive so :)
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 07:56:06 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Power Construction question
At 11:25 PM 12/31/1998 -0800, Ron Abitz wrote:
>I am building a character who can teleport with the SFX of dimensional
>teleport. And when he teleports it "stiffens" the dimension in the area.
>
>I was thinking of using Suppress radius or explosion with +1/4 SFX
>dimensional powers (or does it need to be the +2 lv?) 2 shot autofire (so
>that it will effect both ends of teleport) +1/4 (?), +1/4 Personal
>Immunity, -1/2 no range, -1/2 linked with teleport.
>If I am understanding it correctly when he teleports the the suppression
>will stay intell his next phase when he does not pay the end it will go
>away.
Since neither Wayne nor Christopher batted an eye at this description,
perhaps I am being unusally dense in not grasping this concept. What are
you talking about when you say the area around the teleport site is
"stiffened"? And what exactly is being Suppressed?
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 06:06:58 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Power Construction question
At 11:25 PM 12/31/98 -0800, Ron Abitz wrote:
>I am building a character who can teleport with the SFX of dimensional
>teleport. And when he teleports it "stiffens" the dimension in the area.
>
>I was thinking of using Suppress radius or explosion with +1/4 SFX
>dimensional powers (or does it need to be the +2 lv?) 2 shot autofire (so
>that it will effect both ends of teleport) +1/4 (?), +1/4 Personal
>Immunity, -1/2 no range, -1/2 linked with teleport.
>If I am understanding it correctly when he teleports the the suppression
>will stay intell his next phase when he does not pay the end it will go
>away.
Yes, that's the case; and the +2 Advantage for affecting all dimensional
Powers would probably be more appropriate.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 06:18:08 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Predictions for 1999
At 06:27 PM 12/31/98 -72800, Steven J. Owens wrote:
>Bob Greenwade writes:
>
>> Anyway, here are my predictions for 1999:
>>
>> The World At Large:
>>
>> 8. There will be a mechanical disaster in NASA's space shuttle program,
>> but without fatality (though serious injury is another question).
>
> Meaningless without a better definition of "mechanical disaster",
>since just about everything done in space has either never been done
>before, or only been done a handful of times. Is the shuttle arm
>malfunctioning (as I believe it did on one mission in the past) a
>mechanical disaster? Or merely a breakdown?
Something life threatening (else it wouldn't be a "disaster").
>> 9. The "Y2K bug" will start causing blackouts, utility failures,
>> financial miscalculations, and other problems well before the end of the
>> year, though nothing that causes widespread troubles other than panic.
>
> This is a really easy one to call. After all, the year 2000
>shows up in financial plans and maintenance systems far before the
>current date actually is January 1, 2000.
I like to put at least one easy call in each list.
>> 10. After a Senate trial that lasts longer than anyone now expects,
>> President Clinton will be left in office, but will lose many rights and
>> priveleges that most Presidents are allowed, including his pension and the
>> right to hold elected office after leaving.
>
> Since the trial is expected to last upwards of 12 months, taking it
>past the Jan 1, 2000 date, this one isn't a valid prediction for 1999 (for
>2000, maybe :-).
This is the first I've heard of it lasting anything near that long; I've
generally been hearing two months. In fact, among rank-and-file people
I've spoken with on the topic there's a general belief that there will be
no trial at all.
Part of one of the predictions I made for 1998 and still remember (that
5th Edition HSR would be worth the wait even though it wouldn't be out
until 2nd quarter 1999) is still uncertain, since it won't be seen for
another few months, but still applied for 1998 (since it was originally
expected to be out by Christmas, along with the VIPER teleport device).
>> As a disclaimer, I make no claims to psychic powers, inside information,
>> particularly good sense regarding coming events, or anything similar. And,
>> as with last year's predictions, if anyone wants to keep this list and echo
>> it back on January 1, 2000 (or when everyone's computer recovers from the
>> Y2K bug, whichever comes first), that'd be perfectly fine.
>
> Why are you doing this, again?
Fun. :-]
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:15:31 -0500
From: "Michael Sprague" <msprague@eznet.net>
Subject: Charges and END (Continuing Charges)
Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Similarly, I'm also of a mind that Charges should be an extra -1/2
>Limitation (or yield twice as many charges) for Powers that already don't
>cost END, and that Damage Shield should be an extra +1/2 Advantage for
>Powers that already have No Range. The principle here is that a Power
>Modifier should either affect all applicable Powers equally, or compensate
>for any differences.
I and, many GM's I know, do play charges this way. That is, you get an
extra -1/2 Limitation if you use Charges on a Power that does not cost END.
Personally, I have been thinking that the whole END thing should be removed
from Charges. That is, Charges give you a limited number of uses for a
Power, but those uses still cost END. This makes the whole Limitation more
simple and flexible.
First I think Charges, as written, are a real good deal. Assuming you have
more than one attack Power, I can get 16 0 END shots for a -0 Limitation.
Depending on the specific campaign, this may be enough even if you have no
other attack powers. With my suggested change, Charges would become a true
Limitation, with no "advantage-like" side effect.
Second, Charges as written are a better deal for Powers that cost END, then
for those that don't. With my suggested change, Charges would affect all
Powers equally.
Third, there have been several occasions where I wanted the Charges to cost
END. So, for a -1 total Limitation, I get 8 shots that cost me END. This
seems too good a deal, but it's the only way to do it within the existing
rules, unless I make up my own Limitation. With my suggested change,
Charges would become more flexible as the player could choose whether or not
the Power used END, and the modifier would not be out of line if END was
desired.
Last, you can get rid of Charges as an Advantage when you go over 16. They
just continue to be a -0 Limitation. With my suggested change, defining a
reasonably large number of charges for a Power, because of the concept,
would not make that power cost more.
I have not made these changes in my own campaign, and would have to work
though it more before I did. For example, one might want to have a step
between the -1 level and the -1 1/2 of the Limitation, and then tweak how
many charges one received at each level. For example, maybe 16 charges
should be at the -1/4 Limitation level, with 32 starting the -0 level.
One would also have to take a close look at how this would affect Autofire.
As it is, an Autofire attack needs a +1 Advantage to reach 0 END. Applying
that same +1 using Charges would get you 250 shots, or 50 full autofire
attacks. Simply applying a +1/2 Charges Limitation to an Autofire attack
would net you 64 shots, or roughly 13 full autofire attacks, which is
probably enough for most combat. In general, a much better deal that
Reduced END. With my suggested change, the Autofire attack would still need
to buy Reduced END, if that were desired, and as a -0 Limitation, Charges
would simply become a special effect.
Would this work out well? What am I missing here?
~ Mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 11:42:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Dale Ward <daleaward@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Other Mailing Lists
Greetings!
I don't want anyone to think that I'm putting down supers games, but
they're just not my cuppa. Therefore...
Can anyone direct me to (an)other list(s) that deal(s) specifically with
the fantasy and/or hard SF implementation of the HSR?
During my stay here, I've collected quite a few messages that deal with
these subjects. Lately, however, they've been a bit on the rare side. I don't
think I'll be dropping from this list, but I've got to find another one that
better suits my needs.
Take Care and Happy New Year!
Dale A. Ward
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 16:05:00 -0500
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: New Year's Predictions
You mean this list?
At 07:30 AM 1/1/98 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> First of all, everyone, have a great 1998! (I know life is already on
>the upswing for me!) :-]
> Now, let's see how good I am at prognostication, with ten predictions
>for 1998. If anyone wants to stash them away somewhere and re-post them
>next December 31 to see how accurate I am, go ahead!)
>
> First, five Hero-related predictions:
>
> 1. Due to various minor problems, the Fifth Edition Hero System
>Rulebook will be delayed until early 1999.
> 2. There will be four to six Ultimate books released, including my own.
> One of them (not necessarily mine) will be so good that even Stainless
>Steel Rat will have good words for it.
> 3. One more company will approach the Hero Guys about doing licensed
>products for Fourth Edition, though negotiations will slow things down so
>the first product doesn't appear until 2000.
> 4. There will be at least one mention of Hero Plus, Gold Rush, or both
>(whether a news article or a book promotion) on national network or
>syndicated television.
> 5. Someone will file an intellectual property lawsuit against Hero
>Games, only to have it thrown out of court.
Well, you missed the first one since they're saying second quarter on the
website. (Of course, the website doesn't list any products what-so-ever
but that's a different problem.) And number 5 moves up to number 1 on this
year's list.
> Now, five predictions for the world at large:
>
> 1. At least one Far Eastern nation will suffer a catastrophic financial
>collapse that rivals or even exceeds the severity of the Great Depression.
> 2. There will be a highly publicized but unsuccessful assassination
>attempt against Saddam Hussein.
> 3. Hanson's sitcom will be either scuttled, or cancelled after no more
>than five episodes.
> 4. Somebody will try something violent and ugly in retaliation for one
>of the events in the Branch Davidian/Timothy McVeigh line of events.
> 5. Good Morning America (which already has Tom Bergeron, Laurie
>Hibberd, and Jeff MacGregor) will continue to pick up personnel and
>material (at least one unit from each category) from the old Breakfast Time
>and Fox After Breakfast programs.
Well, let's see, #1 nearly happened in a bunch of far east nations. I must
have missed #2. Never heard about a Hanson sitcom (thank God). Again no
retailations that I'm aware of. I don't morning television so I can't
comment on #5.
> Now let's see how I do. (I figure two from each section will be really
>good, and frankly I'm more confident of the second list than I am on the
>first!)
Not too good, huh?
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:26:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Other Mailing Lists
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Dale Ward wrote:
> Can anyone direct me to (an)other list(s) that deal(s) specifically with
> the fantasy and/or hard SF implementation of the HSR?
>
> During my stay here, I've collected quite a few messages that deal with
> these subjects. Lately, however, they've been a bit on the rare side. I don't
> think I'll be dropping from this list, but I've got to find another one that
> better suits my needs.
I honestly don't know of any other HSR mailing lists out there - I'd
certainly join an FH list if there were one.
Your other recourse is of course to start discussions here. I've had
several threads based on my (on hold due to lack of interested players)
Final Fantasy-style HERO game, usually based around a 'how do you do X'
type of thing.
Ask questions...I wouldn't mind more FH-type discussion on the list.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 99 23:56:01
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: CSL vs DCV (was CHAR: Anita Carstairs)
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:40:41 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>At 07:34 PM 12/31/98, qts wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:44:37 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>>
>>>At 06:43 PM 12/30/98, qts wrote:
>>>>Err, this is what I'm saying! Except you seem to have understood the
>>>>reverse. You take a 5 pt CSL, then to make it DCV only, you apply a
>>>>Limitation, as per the HSR.
>>>
>>> What edition are you reading? Mine says that +1 to DCV *is* a 5-point
>>>Combat Skill Level (3rd paragraph after the first example under CSL).
>>
>>4th Ed, 2nd col, last para.
>
> What page?
22.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #117
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:08 PM