Sense-Based and Sense-Based (Reversed)

[Stripe]

Rules as written and canonically speaking, would it be required to combine both Vision-Based (p. B106) and Vision-Based (Reversed) (Powers, p. 105) if the trait requires that the attacker see the victim AND the victim see the attacker? Is this not necessary? Is this not allowed?

Originally Posted by Basic Set, p. 106

Vision-Based
[The] attack is channeled through [the] victim's [eyes], allowing it to ignore DR!

[The] attack only affects [a victim] who is using the targeted sense. For instance, a Vision-Based attack cannot affect a blind subject or someone with his eyes closed . . .

Originally Posted by Powers, p. 106:

Vision-Based (Reversed)
It's permissible to "reverse" Sense-Based to create an ability that works through the [attacker's] senses. To affect [the] target, [the attacker] must see it with unaided eyes (Vision-Based) . . .

For Vision-Based, the victim must see the attacker. For Vision-Based (Reversed), the attacker must see the victim.

I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. For example, Reversed works against a blind victim, but the attacker can't be blind.

Rules quotes and page references appreciated.

Thanks!

[Phantasm]

For an ability where you must make "eye contact" for it to work, I would say that the ability should require both.

An example would be Medusa (or other Gorgons) in most depictions, who can see you without necessarily turning you to stone, and whose back you can lay eyes on without her turning you to stone, but gods forbid you meet her gaze with your own.

[vicky_molokh]

The combination seems totally appropriate if it accurately depicts the way an ability works.

[Ashtagon]

I can't remember the page reference, but I believe the total cost modifier is 30% instead of 20% for this.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

I can't remember the page reference, but I believe the total cost modifier is 30% instead of 20% for this.

I would be interested in such a page reference . . .