What about that part that says " even if they CANT use Super Strength" I dont see any reason for them to drop the UL since the only thing Super Strength has to do with them holding it is not having Super Strength.

It's a subtle difference, but it is not "not having Super Strength" that is to what the rules are referring. The rules refer specifically to the event of LOSING Super Strength...ie, you had the ability to use SS, but now you suddenly do not. That is a specific occurrence, and when it happens the rules are very clear about what happens as a result...you drop the object that you are holding. As I said above, the rules as written don't care about whether or not you still have the ability to hold it.

The clearly implied line is this:

However, that line isn't there. A literal reading of the rules would be that if you lose Super Strength, you drop the object.

I sometimes wonder whether the Rules Team thinks about wording at all, because this is exactly the sort of sloppy writing that causes rules issues in the first place. Here's a correct version of the above:

@alexander

Actually... That is NOT "clearly" implied.

It may be implied, maybe. But it certainly isn't CLEAR that it is.

From a flavor standpoint it actually makes a smidge of sense. The shock of losing your super strength causes you to drop whatever you're holding, even if you will still be able to hold it.

The character's immense strength gets drained, and so the object feels 'relatively' heavier, causing them to drop it. They can then go ahead and just pick it back up, since it really isn't that heavy, but the shock of losing their immense strength is what caused them to drop it.

Y'all're gonna go blind.

I completely agree with Harpua and Anthony that as written, the ultra light object would be dropped.

Well, I'm already not seeing a purpose to posts like this.

You may not see the purpose, I can't see the rationale. How would this make us go blind? Is it because we're using our eyes too much for reading? Is it like drinking moonshine? Is it the classic activity Catholics tend to tell people will cause blindness? Is it something else entirely? I just don't even get the joke.

Yes, that's the joke. As for why Thrumble feels the urge to make multiple comments about "rules porn" that don't add to the discussion in any way, I got nothin'.

Same reason the Catholics tell people that at every opportunity they get.

Vlad and Harpua agree on what a bunch of words say?

BLASPHEMY!

If this keeps going on we'll see quebbster, normalview, and necromagus all agreeing with them...

and then where will we be?

This game cannot hope to continue if the old rules team have unanimous opinions on what words mean.

When you're looking at figures over 100 points, I can agree with that... but HOs are still the high end for anyone under 100 points.

One of those "joke" things, at the expense of threads like this that seem to wrangle with the minutiae far more than necessary.

That's my explanation, take it or leave it. Honestly had you not called me out, I wouldn't have posted in the thread again.

SIDE NOTE: I'll agree that HC would greatly benefit from a streamlined, consistent lexicon. I also think, however, that there are some instances in which the written rules only fail to make sense if one tries to make them fail to make sense.

Bunch of stodgy old humourless farts in here!

Farts are NEVER humorless!!!

Say that when it's my dad's. There is no humor involved. Just SUFFERING.