Originally Posted by Humabout (Post 1807782)

That's a good point. For 8 points, you probably should get better than just "as good as what you'd have had without it". Heck, even if you used an optional specialty specifically for fooling polygraphs, it still costs 4 points to do what you could with Will. Rolling at +2 would make it cost 2 points to match Will and do anything else Body Control lets you do. Thinking on it, I'd even make Fool Polygraph an average technique that defaults to Body Control+2 and can be bought up on its own.

[EDIT]
Actually, thinking more about this, if you were to take Resistant to Polygraphs (+3), it'd run [2]. So that's Will+3 for 2 points, as opposed to Will+3 for [16] with Body Control (Polygraph Results). Perhaps screwing with a polygraph should fall under not-typically-stressful routine use category that anyone with the skill should be able to accomplish. Give fooling a polygraph a +4 bonus, so that with 2 points in it, you pop out at attribute+3.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1807729)

Complimentary Skills are always a good thing.
As for resisting polygraph, maybe I'd even go further, such as making it skill+2 to +5, since it's a pretty rare skill that allows rather fine control of body functions. I mean, it better be good compared just using straight Will even after a minimal point investment. Besides, opponents can always decide to ditch the polygraph entirely, particularly if they have Intuition.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1807845)

Polygraphs are easy to turn into inconclusive results.
My (sister-in-law) is a pathological liar that has taken some before. Always weird useless results.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1807845)

Getting them to label a lie as a truth takes "tricks" that are supposedly not that hard to learn.
I wouldn't say those have anything what so ever to do with willpower, except in a cinematic setting that has lie detectors rather than polygraphs.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1807845)

Almost by definition they must be administered without stress as that reduces their accuracy even further. TV examples are always done horribly wrong. You can't spring a question on someone and expect anything other than shock.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1807855)

RAW already accounts for that.

Well, those tricks are very well represented by Controllable Disadvantage (Compulsive Lying) [1]. So yeah, not all that hard to master.
....