No it is not evident. Based on both the specifc wording of your analogy and the SP description hinge upon the success of the act (using the ove to bake, attacking with a ranged attack), not the actual quantity/result of the attack (# of pies, # of characters damaged).

So, if you use the oven once, or successfully damage a character(s) with a single ranged attack, you heal one click of damage.


Now, if you had said, "when you bake a pie in the oven, receive $10 for each pie," then it is obvious... but then your analogy would no longer be similar to the SP wording.

I can see both sides of the 'argument', but ummm you can't have your pie and eat it too :speechles

I guess it all depends on whether you think "for each" is implicit because of the generic nature of the power description, or not. You either think that the arrangement is $10 per pie, as long as it came from an oven (which I think is logical), or not.

That's the crux of the arguement here no? What condition must be met in order for the healing to occur. Is it that manhunter must make a ranged attack that damages, or that manhunter damage an opposing figure while making an attack. It all depends on where you put the emphasis.

Is the question we should be asking "Did he make a ranged attack?" or "Did an opposing figure get damaged by his ranged attack?"

Personally I agree that the qualifier seems to be that an opposing figure is damaged by the range attack, and that it can be satisfied more than once on any single attack.

To me, the reasoning would be:

Was opposing figure 'x' damaged by the range attack? Yes. Heal one click.
Was opposing figure 'y' damaged by the range attack? Yes. Heal one click.

A-HA, so this is in fact a use of Steal Energy!

That should settle this.

Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."

Each time. Case closed.

Umm... yeah. I thought that was a given, sorry.

Revisiting that wording, yeah, that is a pretty compelling argument and I am now leaning towards your interpretation.

I don't think it is as neat and tidy as you make it out to be, though, since A) this is still a case of ranged combat (and close combat can't normally target more than one character with a single attack like ranged combat can) and B) the ranged combat wording of the SP does not specify 'each'.

So, while I am now more or less in agreement with you, this could still use a definitive answer from the RA.

Has there ever been a ruling (or a need for a ruling) on the use of Quake and Steal Energy together?

Nope. Not that I am aware of.

I think something similar popped up with Vampirism on Deathstroke (since he can distribute damage from an attack among adjacent targets). I don't know if it was Norm at the time, but the feeling seemed to be that he gained clicks of healing for each target that took damage.

Amazing what a posting of the entire wording of a power can do, no?

I don't think "the case is closed."

Steal energy when used with a close combat attack is only ever directed against one target. If a piece has Flurry and Steal Energy, they can make the second attack (granted by Flurry) if Flurry is still on the dial. That and a couple of SPs are the only instances in the game (so far) where a piece is given the opportunity to make more than 1 attack in 1 turn.

If you want to treat one attack roll as two seperate attacks (even if you only make one roll) then would you lose the second click of healing if you lost the special power when you healed the first click? (as is often the case with Flurry and Steal Energy)

You then mention the definition of Steal Energy...
Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."

However, Steal Energy is now in question as the definition cannot be applied in this situation as this is a ranged combat attack.

Also, if we are being so particular to the wording of definitions then you have to re-examine Manhunter's SP

POWER BATTERY: Manhunter can use Steal Energy, but is also healed when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage.

Applying the same strict interpretation used for Steal Energy, the plural does not exist in the Power Battery description, so even if you give Manhunter the ability to attack 2 targets, Manhunter is only healed when he damages an opposing character (singular).

Regardless of which way the ruling goes, this debate has been enjoyable and I congratulate the participants on keeping things civil.

Also, there seems to be a lot of investment to pull off this play.

Manhunter is already a 64 point piece.
Ambidextrious costs 12.
Now, you need to throw on AP because the Manhunter needs to cause damage so that is another 10 pts.

I guess you could use Stunning Blow, but that will only work for 1 click and then we have raised another debate... if a character deals pushing damage, does pushing damage (if no damage is dealt from the actual attack) trigger Steal Energy?

I don't understand why they keep inventing feats that just add more complications, and will ultimately be used in some cheesy way to win tourneys.

Feats are the worst aspect of the game IMO.

This is true only in the sense that no opportunity has arisen where a figure has both Quake and Steal Energy at the same time. However, see my point about Deathstroke with Vampirism above, and note that there is nothing about the power Steal Energy that indicates a limit to targets - and in fact, "each time" seems to indicate that in fact multiple uses are permitted.

I have never said anything about two separate attacks. There is only one attack being made, with two targets. If separate attacks were made, it would be like Flurry.

The definition of Steal Energy still applies because the Power Battery SP is still using Steal Energy, with exactly one modification.

A plural does not exist, but the phrase "each time" does exist as part of the definition of Steal Energy, which is in use with the sole modification that it now applies to ranged attacks "also".

My feeling is that no, pushing damage is not from the attack itself, but a corollary from receiving a second token. Pushing damage has no 'source' in this context (although it can, as in a Nova Blast, have one).

No. All Incap does (and Stunning Blow is just a modified Incap) is place a token on a character.

The token then may or may not cause pushing damage (depending on the number of other tokens, powers, abilities, etc), but if it does cause pushing damage, that is not the result of an attack.