Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

Which is still the opposite of what I'm doing. I'm very, very specifically not associating the damage threshold with the level of DR -- I'm choosing a specific value for the threshold, that may or may not be equal to the level of DR. Note the text you just quoted: I list the DR value as X and the damage threshold as Y. In a setting where there were an appreciable number of attacks with armor divisor(2), for instance, it would be necessary to choose Y as 2*X. It would also be perfectly valid to choose some value for Y that was less than X, but it would only really be effective against attacks with reduced penetration.

In other words, I specifically built the power the way that I would so that it wouldn't be "tied" to the amount of DR. It's a perfectly valid accessibility.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

But Flexibility's threshold is directly linked to the DR level. So is the AoN trait's threshold. They're not arbitrary. They are proportional to the DR level, in both cases. Also, the very presence of armor divisors makes the specifying the threshold as arbitrary a scary idea, because then it wouldn't be affected by armor divisors.

By your logic, it is perfectly valid to make a Flexible-like limitation, which gives a 20% damage 'bleed' if the damage falls at [X..Y], with X>4 and Y<DR. But that's munchit.

There's no point in trying to untie the damage range from DR if the only logical case is where it is tied.

Heck, if you add in stuff like (Semi-)Ablative DR, you'll see why you'll need to tie these two anyway!

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

Sure they are. I've indicated valid reasons to choose values for the threshold that are distinct from the level of DR, and those values have an impact on the performance of the trait.

The DR would still be affected by the armor divisor in any case. I'm not really sure what you're on about here.

Show me how that's built from the specific limitation I've proposed.

...so its a good thing I took the time to show the other cases.

No, semi-ablative seems to me to be a good reason *not* to tie them.

Look, we're going in circles here. I'm not getting anything from your posts other than:

"Sometimes DR is limited in fashion X, therefore it must only be limited in that fashion."

That would possibly be valid if what I proposed was closely mirrored by one of the existing limitations -- but its not. Applying a threshold "Only against attacks smaller than X," where X can be equal to or greater than my DR* level isn't really like anything, but it works very well as an accessibility, IMO.

If you disagree, I can't really do much about it. I've made all the relevant points that I know how to make. You seem hung up on calling it "all-or-nothing," but building it as all-or-nothing was what I was trying to avoid, because that's a pricing nightmare.

If you have specific questions to pose, I'll respond, but otherwise I've said really all that needs to be said. It's how I would build the power requested by the OP. YMMV.

*It could also be less than my DR, but that would be of limited utility.