[Powers] Link and costs FP, other limitations

[Gnome]

If I combine two abilities with Link, +10%, and I want the "package" to include costs FP, do I modify both abilities with the limitation or just one of them?
Similarly, if I want the ability package to have Takes Extra Time, Preparation Required, etc., do I modify both abilities the same way or just one of them? And if I modify both, is Link allowing me to "count" one FP cost, or one readying time, etc., to both abilities simultaneously?

[Gnome]

Ok, having searched a bit more, I found that Link is not always appropriate; typically, it seems that Accessibility (only while other ability is active), -10% makes more sense than Link in most cases.
However, I still don't know exactly which limitations should apply to both abilities.

I'll lay out some specifics. I'm building a Temporal Control power that allows characters to use a special gadget (called a Time-winder) to manipulate time in various ways. The source of the power is time itself, which is a kind of cosmic force in the campaign.
The power modifier is a very hefty -70%, as it includes Anti-Powers (supernatural & technological countermeasures), -10%, Gadget (breakable, can be stolen), -50%, and Requires Skill Roll (Electronics Operation (Parachronic)), -10%.

The question is, if I package two abilities together to work as one (for example ATR and ETS), do I apply the PM to both abilities or just to ATR? From reading other threads it does seem as if any Costs FP limitation should only apply to ATR as that's the more expensive ability. I'm unsure about the PM or other limitations, such as Takes Extra Time, Preparation Required, etc.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Gnome

if I package two abilities together to work as one (for example ATR and ETS), do I apply the PM to both abilities or just to ATR?

From reading other threads it does seem as if any Costs FP limitation should only apply to ATR as that's the more expensive ability.

I'm unsure about the PM or other limitations, such as Takes Extra Time, Preparation Required, etc.

Thaumatology Sorcery pg 13 does go with that "apply the Sorcery limitation to the most expensive advantage only"

If a player wants to apply it to the less expensive advantage instead that'd be fine with me, it's their points to waste.

Sorcery 23 has an example (Costs Fatigue -5% is built into the Sorcery -15% power modifier) for Turn Zombie: the Affliction has the Sorcery limitation but the linked Crushing Attack does not (it only takes Magical -10%) which means the ability as a whole costs 1 FP.

If you had costs FP built into both linked halves it'd cost 2 FP.

I'd guess time-based expensives (TET/IPR) would probably be cumulative too, except that Link merges being able to activate both abilities as a single attack (or single concentrate or ready) so that does muddy the waters.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Plane

Thaumatology Sorcery pg 13 does go with that "apply the Sorcery limitation to the most expensive advantage only"

If a player wants to apply it to the less expensive advantage instead that'd be fine with me, it's their points to waste.

Sorcery 23 has an example (Costs Fatigue -5% is built into the Sorcery -15% power modifier) for Turn Zombie: the Affliction has the Sorcery limitation but the linked Crushing Attack does not (it only takes Magical -10%) which means the ability as a whole costs 1 FP.

If you had costs FP built into both linked halves it'd cost 2 FP.

I'd guess time-based expensives (TET/IPR) would probably be cumulative too, except that Link merges being able to activate both abilities as a single attack (or single concentrate or ready) so that does muddy the waters.

That's an interesting and potentially helpful example. I don't have Sorcery, but if they're putting Magical, -10% on the linked Crushing Attack, it sounds like there's some distinction being made between Costs FP and other sorts of limitations. Hard to know where my Gadget limitations and skill roll requirements fall.

And in some cases putting the limitations on the cheaper advantage does make sense if allowed, if the more expensive one would get pushed over the -80% limit for example.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Gnome

in some cases putting the limitations on the cheaper advantage does make sense if allowed, if the more expensive one would get pushed over the -80% limit for example.

Yeah that's always good to consider.