Not true. An attack designed to restrict bloodblod wouldn't work if you didn't have the strength to depress the target's bloodvessles. You would not be able to use such an attack on Iron Man, Thing, or the Hulk, for example.

Even on normal humans, stronger humans are more resistant to most such attacks than weaker humans, as their systems are better able to recover from physical stresses. Pressure points give you an advantage in combat, but it's not an equal advantage against all opponents. CCE actually represents the effect of pressure points much more realistically than EW does.

But your math is flawed. It's not "1+1", it's "(1+1)/X", in which X is the resiliancy of the target. It might be 2, if X = 1, but it might be much less if the target is resistant to such attacks, like if they have invulnerable skin or something.

Only to you. I can't imagine that Seth even considers bystander tokens when balancing the abilities of actual figures. Bystander tokens are artificially hampered by their hardcoded limit of one click of life. Almost any Bystander in the game, even Aunt May, would have at least two clicks of life if the physical mechanics of the token allowed for it. Some of the existing Bystander tokens would have seven or more clicks of life if it was an option. Many of them DO have powers, some of them have more powers than some of the 3D figures in the game.

It might be fun to houserule it so that Galactus could "save up" damage, such that for each turn he does nothing at all, he can deal once and again damage once the following turn (so that, for example, if his damage it 7, and he skips one turn, he can make one 14 damage attack, or 21 if he skips two turns, etc.) That would actually be very Galactus-y.

It occurs to me that Batman for the most part is already the way I'd described he should be, 2/3 damage + O/EW. With the exception of a few figures with CCE (where his damage tops 4/5) in their middle clix, his powers damage perfectly reflect what I've proposed.

On the subject of damage scaling though, someone I was speaking with brought up the point of damage potential. For example, the Hulk is able to do 4 natural damage whereas Daredevil can only do 4 damage with the help of CCE. Although the amount of damage is the same numerically, the Hulk has greater damage potential because under the rule of 3 he can still be augmented +3. Hulk could use SS and still have someone else Perp. him up. DD's damage could only go up 1 more, so in that sense the Hulk (max 7) could do a lot more damage than Daredevil(max 5).

This theory is equally illustrated with potential damage loss. As the target of powers such as O/Perp., were it possible DD could literally go below 0 damage. Because the Hulk's natural 4 can only be dropped by Perp. he will never sink below 1.

That's the best explanation for the damage scaling I've heard. And a truly Imp. character could still make a saving dice role bomb or otherwise.

That is a cool idea. I'd like to see that with his heralds too (only the Power Cosmic ones, of course). It might actually make them worthwhile using. You could keep track of the accumulated damage with counters and use as much/little as you wanted per attack. It would also add the element of needing to conserve damage to build up bigger attacks.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this rule, but Hulk can actually get a 4 base damage up as high as 9, because Super Strength does not follow the rule of 3. He can have his Damage Perplexed 3 times, and then use Super Strength to do 2 more (and 1 more on top if he gets a crit).

Your overall point is certainly true though, that a base 4 is far more useful than 2+CCE, which is why there is much less outcry about DD getting 2+CCe than if his dial had raw 4's on it. And while you CAN get DD's damage to 5, it requires three Perplexers to do it, since you can't Perplex on top of CCE, you'd have to overide it comepltely.

Defensive Damage Perplexing is pointless, because Perplex only lasts during your own turn. If you Perplex DD's damage to 0 during your turn then as soon as your turn ends his damage pops back to 2, so it's a futile excersize.

There currently is no such thing as damage loss. The only thing that comes close is power dampening field, and that has nothing to do with the rule of 3. It would be a neat game mechanic to explore however. A new team ability or feat that lowers damage characters do for a turn. It could also be a BFC card similar to armor wars in reverse.

I'm actually begining to think that with all the hassle Perplex seems to be causing (such as people blaming it for Seth's abysmal AVs), that it might be a good idea to make it so that only ONE Perplex could effect any single stat at a time (although it could stack with ICwO, Enhancement, etc.). In return, to keep the cost of the power balanced, they could allow the effects to last through the opponent's turn, so you could in fact lower your opponent's AV, Damage, Movement, or boost your own Defense and have it be worthwhile.

Um...no it doesn't...You can perplex once and then use CCE....I'm not sure where you are getting your info but there is nothing inherent within CCE or Perplex that makes it so you can't use both of them together...